Roger, Gary and Michael. Thanks for your responses.

Roger - thanks for the leads. As I indicated to Bob, I've added CCS \"proofs\" to my future paper lists, and your information will help me get started.

Gary - I understand very well the limitation of what we are doing in California. It will take major international agreements with real teeth to get all major nations to start playing by the \"net zero\" rules. I posted a paper a few months ago where I suggested a possible route for this (linked below, Section 4), but I'm sure there are others.

https://www.energycentral.com/system/files/ece/nodes/366123/meaningful_change.pdf

Also economics seem to be doing a pretty good job of eliminating coal in the U.S.

Michael - you could be right that keeping any of the combined cycle plants running in the long run is not viable, but in the short run they will be necessary for their dispatchable power during certain times of the year, in certain constrained locations on the grid and under certain weather conditions. Only time will tell if wind, PV, storage and other renewables will be able to completely displace these in several decades. Also, as described in my paper, these may be the most cost-effective way to provide negative emission technology, and I believe this will be required to offset many emission sources that will be very difficult to eliminate (cars, airplanes, ships, etc.).

Zero-Emissions Combined Cycle and Beyond