Day by DayNo man is an island, entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne.
|
|
I'm glad that Bob Brown has belled the cat by saying that we should cease mining coal in three year's time. This means that finally the Greens are going to have to face up to the cold hard reality of defending their policies. For too long they have been able to throw bricks at the major parties, without having to defend their own lamentable record of addressing the consequences of their extremism. For too long the solar advocates have been able to say that renewable energy is the alternative without having to face any hard questions regarding continuity of supply or cost. The claim that a mix of renewable energies is the way to go just does not bear scrutiny. Take the three most quoted sources; solar, wind and tidal. Apart from the cost of tripling our generating capacity, we then have to get the sun, wind and tides to co-operate by being available at the appropriate time. The sun doesn't shine on demand. Neither does the wind blow whenever you want it to. And tides vary according to the position of the moon. But hey, that's the Greens solution, so it must work mustn't it. If it doesn't, then it's because we haven't spent enough on research; the fossil fuel vested interests have stopped it; or somebody didn't put the cat out last night. Any excuse will do, except the obvious one; it doesn't work. And if this renewable energy is an alternative energy source, how come all the renewable energy advocates aren't all energy self sufficient by now? Those few who have installed solar collectors still rely on grid power as a backup. And they've found the ongoing cost to be more than they'd bargained for when they have to replace those collectors and batteries. And I haven't noticed ANY solar systems capable of replacing the electric cooker. Presumably we'll need to go back to the old wood stove. Thereby polluting our cities even more. But hey, we've saved the planet. But never mind. Google has all the answers. You'll find something there to solve the world's energy problems if you'll only look. For instance, did you know that the electric car is going to solve ALL our energy problems? Yep, all that has to be done is everyone buy an electric car and solar panels. Charge up your battery using your solar panels, providing the sun is shining, then do all your driving, come home, and plug your car into the grid, and presto, you're powering Australia! And during rainy periods when this power isn't available, we'll just shut down Australia and all have a holiday because there'll be no power to run anything. Like computers, hospitals, traffic lights, city water supplies, sewerage systems, domestic use etc. But hey, we're saving the planet. And Bob Brown has already solved the employment problem caused by shutting down all the coal mines. We'll just employ them in the renewable energy industry, and we'll make mega bucks selling our solar technology. Like the guy on TV a few weeks ago who is pulling up stakes to go to the U.S. because he couldn't get a buyer for his solar heater in Oz. We heard one side of the story from a reporter who didn't even have the gumption to ask how all this marvelous energy was to be stored for use when the sun wasn't shining. Could it be that no-one was interested in this technology because it didn't do what was claimed? Noooooooo! Anyone remember the Horvath hydrogen car that Bjelke Petersen championed years ago? It didn't work either. But the Greenies loved it. But Bob, you just go on solving all our problems. Like telling a city fast running out of water that they don't need more dams. Just use less water. Oh, and if I were you, I'd start looking for a new job. Even Greenies will wake up to you and your fantasy world eventually when they have no power or water. But hey, we're saving the planet. |
| :: Send to a Friend! |
10/2/2007 - Thanks Kees
| Posted by snowy |
| I do think there is a need to reduce emissions, but that there has to be a compromise. I favour clean coal, but the same people who are confident that research will solve all the many renewable energy problems flatly refuse to consider that research will solve clean coal problems. Maybe it won't, but it's worth a try. |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - Research
| Posted by plonka |
| Will not solve the "clean coal" problem either because there is no problem. Coal (like oil) is made out of carbon. Burn it and you get lots of CO2. It simply can't be avoided. Sure, we can sequester it, but that doesn't solve the problem, it only moves it and is just as expensive as using renewables. So the only clean coal is that which remains unburned.
Don't get me wrong, the Greens do tend to be a little over the top about these things, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be heavily researched and there are many areas that could and would benefit from just a fraction of the dollars that are spent on coal research. Sheesh... Anyone think we hadn't been buring and researching coal for the last 300 years. The idea, as far as I'm concerned is not to stop burning it completely tomorrow, but to reduce our dependance on it over time. Three years is a tad unrealistic, and Bob's rediculous notion that it's a simple matter of retraining is ludicrous at best. Still, there are a number people out there, taking their research offshore where they can get the research dollars they need. So don't worry Snowy, those technologies WILL come back eventually, but we'll be paying the royalties, not making them... |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - Research
| Posted by snowy |
| The Greens are more than a little over the top. And research into renewable energy has been going on for the past twenty five years that I have been interested in it, with little progess being made despite the claims of the Greens.
But it seems that the only way people will see the renewable bubble burst is to go down that path. Just be sure you stock up on candles, and develop a taste for hot beer. |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - Beer
| Posted by plonka |
| Well, my mum's a pom and the right British beer at room temp ain't so bad, so I don't really have a problem there. Besides, I can cool beer with any sort of flame. It doesn't need to be generated by coal. Remember the kerosene fridge? I've still got one in the garage. I'm thinking about converting it to burn hydrogen but the flame is to hot. I'll need a lot less hydrogen than kero though, if I can get it right....
But 25 years just doesn't stack up against the 300 we've been researching coal yet we're no closer to a solution where coal is concerned. We can build oxygen injected coal furnaces so we can burn crap coal, we make coal gas, coke and any number of other things but we'll never be able to make it clean. But I have confidence that the renewable bubble won't burst, given the resources that coal research has received over the years. Time is what's required and I think that energy generation will be a very different beast in 10 years time. In 50, who can say. |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - Plonka said most of what I was going to.
| Posted by tinacee |
| in the respect that coal doesn't burn clean. That we'll just be stuck with a heap of big barrels of co2 to clean up. Research might even find a way to disperse it harmlessly, in which case it would be a very good option. Personally, I believe that the 'clean coal' process should be phased in... At the same time each household should be encouraged to take on a self-sustainability system of some sort. This will ease power from the grid and less coal can be burned. When less power is required from the main grid as a standard, then we should be able to comfortably fall back on less 'reliable' means of renewable energy sources and keep coal as a last resort... like in cases such as a giant cloud cutting us off for the sun for any extended period of time... the tides flowing the wrong way... the wind not blowing... the heat disappearing from the bowels of the earth, etc.
Now, a lot of it comes down to the community mind-set too. If it comes to be that people don't mind making some sacrifices it might not be so easy to imagine a multi-renewable system of power production to be beneficial. And if we rely on harvesting power from more than one source, we won't be knocked to the ground if for some reason something does happen to stop, for example, solar production. And on the whole, a self-sustainability program for your home is not that hard to implement. I'm not talking about living by candlelight or walking 10 k into town to do the grocery shopping... but we don't need to leave the verandah light on all night every night either. We don't need the TV on just so that we can hear the sound. We can use torches and other battery powered tools when we can. We don't really need to put the air conditioner on when we can sit outside under a shady tree. These are things that don't really matter to me in the grand sceme of things, things that it won't hurt me to change. But if it's a scorching hot day... damn sure that air conditioner's going on, and then when the bill comes I'll pay for it. But I would rather (a) get it for free, (b) yes... help save the planet and (c) not have to burden someone else just to get something I want. What's wrong with that? We live in the 21st century... we can have luxury whenever we want it, and so we should. But it's just like everything else... we assume that it's owed to us, and we waste too much. Give me a tent, a solar shower and a solar-light any day, that's all I really need... and just for insurance, I'll have one of those cool little torches that you wind up... just in case. Edited by tinacee on 9/2/2007 at 9:31 PM |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - But, but, but....
| Posted by snowy |
| Bob Brown says that we have the renewable energy answers NOW. That's why he wants to start closing down the coal mines NOW. Not after spending megabucks on research, but NOW.
I rest my case. |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - But, but, but, but...
| Posted by tinacee |
| We DO have the renewable energy answers now... all it will take now is convincing the public that it CAN work, and implementing the system. While I think it might take them a little longer to organise than a few years, it can be done. And don't forget that we have enough coal stockpiled to last quite a long time. I don't want to quote figures that I don't have, but I do believe that if mining ceased today we'd still have enough to last for a couple of years, at least. That's providing we carry on as we are... longer if we learn to ration ourselves... maybe even longer still if we learn not to take it for granted. And if necessity calls for it, perhaps research and development will move along at a more rapid pace. Theoretically, if we played our cards right, it could be done... right now.
But then... perhaps they want people to panic about the lack of coal... perhaps they'd be more accepting to nuclear if they think we're going to fall back into the dark ages. |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - Re:We DO have the renewable energy answers now...
| Posted by snowy |
| Please substantiate your statement with cold hard facts as to how it is to be done. This will involve an engineering plan stating how much energy will be required, how it is to be generated, whether continuous supply can be guaranteed, how much it will cost. etc
If you can't supply this information then we do NOT have the renewable energy answers. |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - Please tell me how the sun works...
| Posted by tinacee |
| I want exact temperature, dimensions, and details of all the components of it. If you can't supply this information, then we do NOT have a sun.
I'm not educated in all of that Snowy, so it's rather silly to demand it of me. I'm no scientist, I'm no designer, and I have no idea on the actual workings of the power industry, but I do have the right to form an opinion. I choose to believe in others who do have that education. I have read many things on the subject, watched many docos, etc. Perhaps that's not as good as a practical experience, but opinions from experts tend to weigh heavily with me when I have no relavenat experience of my own. I wouldn't say what I do if I didn't believe that it was possible. There are already renewable energy sources being used in many other countries in the world, so why are we so stupid that we couldn't possibly use them here too? Now, I definitely don't want to exchange one poison for another, so I'll keep looking at the other things we can do. Nor do I want to give up on trying to find a solution just because I don't understand the exact dynamics of it all. That's one of the reasons why I wanted to start up another blog. To help inform the public about a whole range of things. And to ask for discussion... how can we find the bits that don't work if no one points them out. It's not going to be a subject that can be discussed in a couple of entries either. There's a lot more than that to this debate. In the end... who knows if we'll succeed. There's a good chance that we could fail miserably... at both the blog and at finding an acceptable and reliable renewable energy source... but I don't feel like sitting on my hands, moaning to myself about how pointless it all is. That attitude really annoys me. |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - Well no.
| Posted by snowy |
| Bob Brown is saying that we are world leaders in renewable energy technology now. Bob Brown says that we can stop exporting coal and instead export renewable energy technology now. Substantiation for this? Nil.
My blog entry is pointing out the inanity of Bob Brown's statements, and those of other renewable energy advocates, and challenging them to do the hard yards in meeting the energy challenge. Waffling on about the latest Google search is not making the hard yards. Producing an engineering case for renewable energy is. The Greens can't do this, and instead retreat to the well worn excuses of more research needed or various conspiracy theories. Bob Brown has made a lot of outlandish claims about shutting down coal mines and replacing them with renewable energy. The time has come for him to either put up, or shut up. I, for one, have had quite enough of his nonsense. |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - Please explain...
| Posted by RealTart |
| ...something to me, Snowy, if you would. My mate Mobbsy has a simple solar power system for his hot water. It heats during the day and he uses hot water just like you or I would, (even on an overcast day it works because, hey, the sun is shining, because otherwise it would be nightime) and if he chooses to get up in the middle of the night there is still hot water because the batteries store the energy gained during the day. He is about to install another solar system which will give him enough power for all his other power needs (lights, fridge, etc). At the moment, with the hot water solar, he gets a cheque from AGL every quarter (admiteddly quite small, but nevertheless, a payment) for the power his system has sent back into the grid, and which he hasn't used.
So, can you please explain why this is not a good system? |
| Permanent Link |
10/2/2007 - No
| Posted by snowy |
| Because your mate is having you on. Solar hot water systems do not store energy in batteries to be fed back into the system. They store the hot water in a tank, and have electric booster elements for rainy days. I don't know what else he's told you, but I'd be very wary about quoting him in future. Edited by snowy on 10/2/2007 at 3:25 AM |
| Permanent Link |
11/2/2007 - Now...
| Posted by plonka |
| Yes, I'm a loud mouthed advocate of alternatives but I'm afraid that Snowy is right. We DO NOT have the answers now and Bob Brown should have his head examined. Not just because of this debate either....
That said however, I too have a friend that uses a rather large solar collector that powers his whole house. He has a rather impressive battery array too. Trouble is that the batteries are prohibitively expensive. He works in IT though and his UPS at work gets it's batteries changed every year whether they need it or not. Generally, they don't so he takes the old ones home. Now, once the batteries are charged and there's no-one at home using power, he trickles some back into the grid. Admittedly, that looks real good doesn't it? Consider though that the batteries cost thousands if you can't steal them from work. If he had to pay for them, he'd be tripling the cost of buying power from the grid. So although it looks good, unless you have more dollars than sense like this bloke, it's simply not viable to maintain the batteries and the outlay for the array he uses would never be recovered. So yes, we have a lot of research going on but no, the alternatives are not advanced enough as yet to be viable from a cost perspective. Tripling the cost of energy is simply not an option. We need to work out how to sequester the CO2 properly so we can be clean enough to buy us the time we need to develop the alternatives to a point where they are viable. On top of all that, about 60,000 people are employed in the coal industry. Bob thinks three years is enough to retrain these guys and find them employment in alternatives. I'm afraid that like with so many other things, Bob is simply dreaming, possibly even on drugs... Even I can see that.... Perhaps in ten years time we will be able to consider a full time alternative to coal, but at the moment most of the technologies we've discussed here are still very much in their infancy and need much more development... |
| Permanent Link |
11/2/2007 - Alternative energy
| Posted by snowy |
| The other drawback, Plonka, is that batteries just can't accommodate high current heating loads, so kitchen appliances such as frypans, electric jugs, and irons just can't be used. I think a microwave works OK, but have my doubts about a refrigerator. And you still have the problem of needing a backup in times of prolonged rainy periods.
But, from memory, domestic use only accounts for 30% of total electricity use. As I've explained before, solar systems just can't supply the energy needed for industrial use. I have no doubt that there is a place for renewable energy as a supplement to a coal, or nuclear, supplied grid. My concern is that if coal cannot be made environmentally friendly, then we have no choice but to go nuclear, despite all the nasties associated with it. I do not want to see that happen if it is at all possible to avoid it. Edited by snowy on 10/2/2007 at 8:59 PM |
| Permanent Link |
11/2/2007 - Industry...
| Posted by plonka |
| If you build a warehouse or a factory, you are required to have water tanks for every downspout. The reasoning behind that is that an acre or two of roof collects a hell of a lot of water from just a little rain.
Likewise, an acre or two of what's currently the best solar collector will collect more energy in a sunny week than the installation could probably use in a year. 2 problems. 1. Storage. As you say.... 2. Water tanks are ceap, solar cells are not. Answers: 1. Research and development. 2. Research and development. So clearly, what's needed is an interim step that can be slowly phased out when a viable alternate/s are found. CO2 sequestraion or nuclear? Both have their issues, one more so than the other. To me it makes sense to go with the lesser of two evils for the short/mid term and besides, for some reason, nuclear seems just a little more permanent than interim to me. |
| Permanent Link |
12/2/2007 - Some inconvenient facts
| Posted by snowy |
| According to Wikipedia, the solar conversion rate for PV cells on a clear day on the equator at midday is 120W/ square meter. Therefore, one hectare (0.4 acre approx, 10,000 sm.) of PV cells will deliver 1,200,000W per hour in best case scenario, which will taper off either side of midday. A decent sized factory will gobble that up as it is being produced, so your claim that it will probably produce enough electricity in a week to last for a year is just plain wrong. But typical of the misplaced faith that most people place in the magic word, "solar".
Again, according to Wikipedia, the installed cost of PV cells in the U.S. is at least US$6.50/watt, so your PV cells are going to cost at least 1,200,000 x 6.50 = US$7,800,000, and they will need to be replaced every 25 years or so. And they still only give you a fluctuating electricity supply for 8 hours a day....if it doesn't rain. If you want secure supply you still need to be connected to the grid, and expect the grid to have reserve capacity to be used at your convenience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics And sorry, but research involves more than waving a magic wand and wishing it to happen. Research into energy storage is an ongoing multimillion dollar industry, and you can be sure that if it were possible to store energy in such quantities, we would be doing it now. So, that's the way it is. The heart might say solar. The head says coal or nuclear. Hopefully coal. Edited by snowy on 12/2/2007 at 3:52 AM |
| Permanent Link |
12/2/2007 - Yes...
| Posted by tinacee |
| And my sense of sensibility is screaming 'No Nuclear.'
|
| Permanent Link |
12/2/2007 - Mine too
| Posted by snowy |
| So stop wasting time reading my blog, and get cracking on that clean coal research. ;o) Edited by snowy on 12/2/2007 at 3:48 AM |
| Permanent Link |
12/2/2007 - Well perhaps...
| Posted by plonka |
| Come on Snowy, we can all stereotype. The current world record is in fact 30kW using 0.25 square meters of photovoltaic material. Of course, that requires a solar concentrator, which of course is nothing more than a mirror.
http://www.solarsystems.com.au/35pc%20receiver%20news%20item.pdf I also doubt there was any wand waving at Solar Systems. I reckon they probably spent the money and did the hard research and built a prototype and proved it could be done. Besides, you know how I feel about magic...:) Edited by plonka on 12/2/2007 at 4:39 AM |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - And we can all Google "miracle" solutions
| Posted by snowy |
| A concentrated solar collector at Hermannsburg is hardly a prototype for a 1 hectare PV collector in Melbourne, just as a geothermal power station at Birdsville is hardly a prototype for a geothermal power station in Melbourne.
And be wary of news releases from companies proclaiming their latest miracle solutions. Like the guys who are going to supply energy into the grid from car batteries, they do tend to get just a little carried away with the virtues of their product. Well, more than a little, actually. And using the same logic that technology is going to solve the renewable energy storage problems if we only do more research, then we could say that it will also solve the clean coal and nuclear problems. We don't know if it will, but we can still say it. I'd better get googling too. I'm sure there's someone out there with a miracle solution to both. I wonder what Horvath is doing these days... Maybe the fundies are worth a try, as you say, Plonka... Edited by snowy on 12/2/2007 at 2:35 PM |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - Untitled Comment
| Posted by mrpickwick |
| Um, no he didn't Snowy. He called for a plan for the phase out of the coal industry to be developed in three years. The Greens envisage not developing new mines, and letting the industry wind down over about 15 years. In the mean time the workers in the industry would be retrained, just as they have been in other industries that have been phased out. Interesting that there is no outcry from John Howard when jobs in manufacturing, IT, airlines, are taken overseas, that is just 'good business'. But phasing out something that is destroying the planet? Nosiree Bob.
You keep writing, Snowy, as if there is a choice in all this. We can choose to keep using coal or not. And we can't. So whatever technical developments of renewable energy sources are needed, and however they are used in combination, and whatever the world needs to do in conserving energy, is going to have to be done. Otherwise, not to put too fine a point on it, the world is stuffed. |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - Probably closer to
| Posted by plonka |
| Nhill, but still in sunny Victoria and it's more than a hectare Snowy.
http://www.solarsystems.com.au/154MWVictorianProject.html 154mw power station is a good start methinks. It even has quite a bit of tax payer funded backing. So google away Snowy, you never know what you might find. To get to the good stuff though, you're going to have to dig a little deeper... |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - And the Greens need to come up with a detailed plan on how this is to be done
| Posted by snowy |
| And this they never do, Mr Pickwick. We hear a lot of waffle from the Greens about what has to be done, but nothing concrete from the Greens on HOW it is to be done. It is all very well to say that the problems of renewable energy will just have to be addressed, otherwise the world is stuffed. Well, I can tell you that if the Greens don't tell us NOW how those renewable energy problems can be overcome, then the world is also stuffed, economically.
And please, no car battery solutions. Edited by snowy on 12/2/2007 at 3:54 PM |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - "The Victorian power station will generate clean electricity directly from the sun to meet the annual needs of over 45,000 homes with zero greenhouse"
| Posted by snowy |
| At night and in rainy weather? I did warn you about company self promotion, Plonka. And are they getting 30kw/0.25sm there? And when can we expect these on factory roofs?
But I have always supported the use of renewable energy as a supplement to the grid. Not as the sole source of power. And that is where I differ from the Greens. In case nobody has noticed. ;o) Edited by snowy on 12/2/2007 at 3:52 PM |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - Differ...
| Posted by plonka |
| And that's where I have to agree. I know these things won't work at night. But you did advocate the venture capitalists Snowy.
Looking at the fact sheets (there are fed govt. ones for this project too) it seems to be a slightly different method here. Everythings a bit bigger for a start. The CSIRO are doing similar things, but they lost a bunch of technology when Millsy chased the research dollars to the States. Where I'd like to be able to differ with you Snowy is in the use of hydrogen. I've also managed to find quite a bit about that too, but there's to much so I'll have to dedicate another post to it I think. Then you can go to town on me...;-) Oops... Forgot to mention. North-West Victoria is mostly desert. The Little Desert. I've mentioned one of it's properties before and that is, rarely do you see a cloud, let alone get any rain. It's a very good spot for it... Edited by Snowy: I don't normally do this, Plonka, but I have often wondered about Victoria. Seems it's a desert. Which explains why they play that funny football game I suppose. No grass to fall on... Edited by snowy on 12/2/2007 at 6:04 PM |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - Agree?
| Posted by snowy |
| I'm not sure I can handle this, Plonka. I think I'll have to have a lie down.
But your point about venture capitilists, Plonka. What is it? And how do you know that Mills' invention was a goer? Maybe it wasn't, and that's why no-one was interested. All that is solar doesn't necessary glisten. There, that should make you need a lie down... I have to go and do some work. That'll give you some more time for your hydrogen research. Which I don't discount as a possible solution by the way. I think I read somewhere that the energy cost of producing it is greater than the energy released, but I may have got that wrong. You can do the Googling for me to either prove or disprove that. ;o) |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - stuffed
| Posted by mrpickwick |
| 'The world is stuffed economically'? In what possible sense can you have an economy that is separate to the environment? Do you picture people still happily shopping at Coles, playing video games, driving cars on grid-locked highways, as the planet warms up by a further 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 degrees? Do you really think anyone can still be burning coal in 15 years time? |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - Venture captialists
| Posted by plonka |
| Are the best at company spin, that's all...
I woudn't think for a moment that Solar Systems are just doing it so they can feel good about it. So far they've attracted $125mil in federal and state govt. grants... The googling's been done for a while. I've dug deep and I've actually had to go read whitepapers and chemistry stuff (I started with Patto's lesson about water 'cause that was easy). You think you need a lie down now, wait till I'm done with it all. I had to take a panadol first. And yes, I'll even adress Mr. Mills' idea. |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - Do you think that the economy is not dependent on a secure electricity supply, Mr Pickwick?
| Posted by snowy |
| We're waiting for the Greens engineering plan for this to happen. Until they come up with one, they have no credibility in energy matters. None.
The time for doomsday predictions is past. Climate change is now accepted as a reality. What the world needs now is not advice on what not to do, but concrete advice on what to do about it. And this the Greens will not do, apart from Googling hopefully, and then trumpeting the latest Google find as a solution. So, where is the engineering case for renewable energy supply? Where is the retraining program not only for coal miners, but also all the other people dependent on secure electricity supply for their jobs? And again, please no car battery solutions. |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - Not my understanding of venture capitalists, Plonka
| Posted by snowy |
| My understanding is that they are hard nosed investors who invest their money hoping for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They'd be looking between the lines of company brochures full of spin.
Ok, I'll look forward to your hydrogen car plans with interest. Sorry, couldn't resist that. ;o) |
| Permanent Link |
13/2/2007 - Wriong side, this time
| Posted by mrpickwick |
| Snowy, you are always on the right side of arguments. I'm afraid this time you've picked the wrong one. Let's face it, who would you rather have a beer with, me or De-Anne Kelly? |
| Permanent Link |
15/2/2007 - Normally you, of course, Mr Pickwick.
| Posted by snowy |
| But the point I'm trying to make is that neither of you are right on this issue. Advocating total reliance on renewable energy is just as irresponsible as being in denial on climate change. I'm trying to find the middle ground.
But hey, I'll still have a beer with you. Your shout, of course. P.S. And please make that the LEFT side, Mr Pickwick. You really know how to hurt a man by associating me with RIGHT. ;o) Edited by snowy on 15/2/2007 at 12:42 AM |
| Permanent Link |
15/2/2007 - Untitled Comment
| Posted by akbaby |
| Dont be too hard on Bob. After all, who else is standing up for basic goodness. Tell me who. At least he is a MAN with a heart. Would you rather a only a field of leaders with their snouts in the trough. Bit unfair. Look at the stars, there you will find an answer |
| Permanent Link |
15/2/2007 - Whatever...
| Posted by snowy |
| If Bob is talking nonsense, then I will say so. And he is... And I believe he also has his snout in the same trough as everyone else, does he not?
And I don't need you to tell me to look at the stars. I already do that. The astronomy kind, not astrology. If you're looking for answers to global warming in astrology, then the kindest thing I can say to you is that you're going be very, very disappointed. Edited by snowy on 15/2/2007 at 1:54 PM |
| Permanent Link |
|
Entry 52 of 745 Last Page | Next Page |
10/2/2007 - This is really interesting