artie morty
That position would be valid if CO2 was retained in the atmosphere for a time which is small compared with the time to construct the plant. However, it's not. I see figures of from 38 year to 50 years being discussed.
Thermodynamics has nothing to say about CO2 production though. All we know is that whatever means of power generation we use, there will be some wasteage in the form of heat. This is not significant - global warming is not being driven directly by human heat output.
I agree. Did I give an impression to the contrary?
I agree that hydrogen seems a useful way to go as far as energy transmission and storage. It is not a source of energy though, as you obviously realise, and we lack a *cost effective* way of using sunlight as the source of energy to drive a hydrogen extraction process.
I don't really go with the notion that the oil companies are trying to prevent any move to other energy sources. Even Blind Freddy knows that the oil can't last forever, and that we're heading rapidly towards peak oil (if we're not already there). It is entirely within the interests of the oil company shareholders that their companies should be involved in whatever replaces oil.
Sylvia.
