Hybrid Cars

[Matt]

The dash for gas was purely due to a very localised short term gas price advantage over other fuel sources. The CO2 released was of absolutely no concern to any power producer and would have realistically formed no part in a decision to invest as there were no economic advantages in doing so (any incentives to go down this route have only emerged around 3 years ago) The UK's earliest combined cycle gas fired station commenced generation some 10 years earlier in late

1992.

Yes, in most cases they are much more efficient than 60's and 70's generation coal and oil fired stations leading to a lower release of CO2, but gas is a clean fuel that can be burnt far more efficiently in homes, commercial properties and by industry to directly provide heat (increasing effective utilisation of that resource by around 50%)

Using it for electricity generation, particularly when it was abundantly clear that the rate of consumption greatly exceeded the rate of getting new sources into production was always going to be very short sighted, but with no one keeping overall control, as long as the revenues from the taxes associated with abstraction were flowing no one really cared in government what the hell was going on, I think the words commonly used by the clueless are "The market will decide" Unfortunately that, combined with the short term export market that made some people very rich is now coming back to bite us in a big way.

Calling gas "a better option" is always going to be an extremely foolish statement as far as electricity generation is concerned (unless of course you live in somewhere like Siberia, Algeria or Libya)

[Roger]

The message from Matt contains these words:

But the political imperatives to reduce CO2 have been around for that long.

Efficiency is not the main issue.

I am in almost total agreement on that. But that sort of shortsightedness is not the sole preserve of the thatcherites.

I think you have missed the point. Gas is not a better option because it is easier to burn efficiently. It is a better option because burning it produced less CO2 than coal for the same energy output. AIUI natural gas is basically methane - CH4 while coal is basically carbon -C alone.

I believe similar considerations apply to the comparison between petrol and diesel. Diesel will produce 25% more CO2 than the same volume of petrol. (Or is it that petrol will produce 25% less?)

[Chris Bacon]

You've got plenty of it, why not blow it off somewhere more relevant.

[dennis]

I don't think we should burn coal at all. It produces CO2 which we don't want. It can be used to make plastics, etc. which would be a much better use once oil has gone.

Nuclear for power until we can drill a deep enough bore hole to tap the cores heat.

[Roger]

The message from Chris Bacon contains these words:

Thart's rich coming from empty windbag like you.

In the 200 odd postings in this thread still on my computer you are in double figures while I have made just 2 contributions and the 2nd only to clear up a misunderstanding on the first. Over on that other OT thread on rats the situation is much the same.

[Doctor Drivel]

Some experts say the core of the earth is cold. The lava is from surface plates moving. well below that it is very cold. What they say, not me.