energy sources

[damian]

Back in post No 182 Damian said
"I think the economics of the carbon -> solar -> methane system don't stack up"

No numbers, no sources, no reasoning.

Firstly, who said that dealing with carbon emissions was economic ?

Who said dealing with carbon emissions was necessary ?

I accept I didn't expand on that statement. I don't have infinite time to research every idea that's put up here, but your quite right I offered no specific proof on that statement.




They suggest at the moment recovery costs could be between $240 and $550/tonneC - that is around 2 to 3 times the cost of coal - so it is certainly reasonable to say this is getting close to doable.

Think about what you just said. 2 - 3 times the price. As I keep saying it's really easy for me and you to "volunteer" to double or triple our electricity and fuel bills. I can afford it. There are a LOT of people who can't/won't and I don't feel I have the right to impose that on them. Like it or not we are one adult one vote and people who don't share your views get to vote aswell.

This isn't a global warming thread, there are already plenty of those. I am really happy people are thinking about energy sources, but if you begin the case for an alternative energy option with the premise that we can impose tremendous costs on others against their will justified by the assumption that we are on the brink of terrible horrible doom than I'm afraid you've crossed that line. I don't accept the premise therefore I don't accept the justification for punitive impositions on peoples lives.

I brought up bluegen not realiseing there was no viable payback period. I accept that error. You can certainly offer up ideas on systems that are inherantly more expensive than existing options, but if you suggest they "should" be deployed because we "must" address co2 emissions I can not accept your premise.

To change the subject, what do people think about this:

So you run your plastic tubes over the roof and into an underground concrete tank to store heat. Circulate the water through radiators in the house to warm the house in winter. No worries. How about in summer you circulate the water at night to cool it and run it through the radiators on hot days to COOL the house ? Anyone ? thoughts ?

[citybook]

"Who said dealing with carbon emissions was necessary ?"

Well, I can give a list if you really want it.

Even though the US and China reneged at Copenhagen, those countries are actively fixing their emissions.

The US was the leader in investment in low or non emitting energy until recently - but China topped the list of investors in renewables in 2010 - construction worth $48.9bn - up 28% from 2009 (BBC News).

The fact that Australia spent almost nothing on renewables in 2010 doesn't mean much in the global scheme of things.

"Think about what you just said. 2 - 3 times the price"

I did think about what I said - the 2-3 times was not my point - my point was that it's almost doable.

How about the China People's Daily reporting a $30.8 million project in Ordos city - to capture 100,000 tons of CO2 pa at a cost of around $50 per ton ? Is that doable ? The Chinese think so...

The fact is a lot of people think recovery of carbon will happen - maybe not in Australia, but that doesn't matter.

My post is not about global warming - it's about a massive opportunity to adopt an energy source that almost fits our existing infrastructure. The fact that it would fix the carbon emission problem could be a springboard to the adoption of something like this because there are huge amounts of money available - eg. 2011 UK Budget provides almost $5 billion Aussie.

I don't think talking about BlueGen was an error - I also have been interested in them for a while - I also was interested in Allis Chalmers testing a 30hp fuel cell tractor in the UK around 1965 - it disappeared, but I'm still wondering where it went. Maybe I'm obsessive...

"To change the subject"

In post No 88 in this thread I included a link to work done by O'Keefe and Francis in the late '80s - specifically about using EPDM tubes to heat water - they say the efficiency is suprisingly close to copper - and the price is much lower - so yes, I think you are on a winner here.

I am planning to do the EPDM thing, hopefully later this year.

Along these lines - there are commercial hydronic heating outfits in the south - but none in Qld ? It gets cold here ...?

The key is solar power - cheaper than electricity or gas - and more importantly, the price has been the same for years...

But cooling is a little harder - need some more ideas on that one.

Cheers,
Bob.

[Master Splinter]

Even solar power won't hack it at the rate of economic growth the planet has had for the last few hundred years (about 2.9% per annum); in just under 300 years we will need all landmass covered in solar panels; 100 years later we will need all solar energy hitting the planet (panels on oceans as well as landmass) to meet our energy needs.

A mere 900 years after that, we will need to capture the entire energy output of our sun; just over 1,000 years after that, we will need the energy output of our galaxy to keep us in the lifestyle that we want to be accustomed to!

And don't even think about global warming unless you mean 'hot enough to melt lead'!

Galactic-Scale Energy | Do the Math (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/)

[citybook]

Interesting - the problem is that all the energy we have comes from the sun - it's a bit academic to talk about exceeding that.

First comment about Tom Murphy's blog is his graph plots energy as watts - actually watts is a measure of power, which is different to energy.

Second comment I'm suprised Tom Murphy shows a straight line - I am pretty sure it should be exponential - for instance have a look at
Manicore - What is our present energy consumption like ? (http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/energy_consumption.html)

Third comment - we get enough sunlight to keep us going for a while yet - for instance this bloke here thinks covering Spain with solar panels would do the trick at 199,721Twh
Land Art Generator Initiative (http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127)

cheers,
Bob.

[Bushmiller]

Running out of solar energy presurposes we will have enough food supplies to sustain the sort of population you must be talking about.

As a good proportion of the planet aready does not have enough food, I don't see that there will be a significant improvement in this area. That in itself may be self limiting. The need for power might not escalate quite as fast as is supposed.

The need to use landmass for food production is a reason I am not a fan of "growing" fuel. You can't eat fuel.

I don't mean to minimise the need to find more energy sources. It is incontestable that we will need more.

Regards
Paul

[damian]

Paul:

Funny the conversation has come full circle for now.

The planet has enough food, what we have is a distribution problem. We throw away tonnes of it every year. Having said that your greater point is entirely valid.

The second half of your first paragraph is exactly what my origional post was about. If you can supply the energy to facilitate higher living standards then population growth tends to decline and you avoid a food crisis. Either way you get a problem to solve.

I cannot agree more on your seocnd paragraph. In the US a couple of years ago, supposedly a wealthy developed country, when ethanol production stepped up suddenly it drove massive and immediate increases in basic and processed foods, so much so that poorer people were suffering signifigant hardship buying food. If it happens there that badly and that quickly imagine if it were a worldwide problem.

Bob:

Well, I can give a list if you really want it.

Nope, already done that thread several times. Ain't drunk the coolade and not about to. I'll say it again and leave it at that. I don't accept the premise and I don't accept tipping a cost into energy production without a solid scientific reason. I don't care what politicians say and do and I don't care about overcredentialed scientists posturing. The only thing that will sway me is a solid scientific argument complete with data. Transparent and robust. Love to see it, love to be shown I'm wrong. Ain't seen it yet.

If I get time I'll run some numbers on cooling by circulating water through radiators. It won't be dramatic but it might be worthwhile.

[Bushmiller]

The planet has enough food, what we have is a distribution problem. We throw away tonnes of it every year. Having said that your greater point is entirely valid.


Damian

Agreed.

Try getting those who have too much to give to those who have way too little! Even when the food is not of a nature to go off, there is very little interest.

Regards
Paul

[damian]

Unfortunately there is a cost associated with moving it. Not just cartage. It doesn't seem to get much publicity but the cost of corruption and theft in those impoverished places is much higher than the cost of actually delivering aid. Usually the famines and such are brought on more by war than by drought. Natural disasters are much easier to deal with and the corruption is endemic.

At the risk of getting off topic I've always felt we would be doing those people a much greater favour by protecting them in their homelands than by relocating them to our or other western societies. Most genuine refugees would be happy to stay and work if they were safe. By bringing them here we make their lives hard in other ways. Unfortunately it's politicatlly incorrect to depose an african, arab or south american despot, and when the west does intervene it's usually more about money, religeon and power than altruistic intent.

[woodbe]

So you run your plastic tubes over the roof and into an underground concrete tank to store heat. Circulate the water through radiators in the house to warm the house in winter. No worries. How about in summer you circulate the water at night to cool it and run it through the radiators on hot days to COOL the house ? Anyone ? thoughts ?

Depends on where you live and your budget I think. If you have designed the building to cope with extremes of external air temps and radiant heat effectively, then you should need just a small energy input to tip the internal temperature to comfort - and yes, storing some externally heated/cooled water under the house would be one way of doing that. Your system sounds to me like a switchable thermal mass, I suspect a well designed passive solar home would achieve similar results for less expense.

Your point about insulation in Queenslanders is well made. It underlines the fact that this is not a cookie cutter problem we all face in keeping our homes comfortable, we need to take into account the regional and local climate, the house orientation and construction, and any thermal devices already in place such as shading and insulation etc. What works for one is no license to apply it to all.

woodbe.

[hughie]

Depends on where you live and your budget I think. If you have designed the building to cope with extremes of external air temps and radiant heat effectively, then you should need just a small energy input to tip the internal temperature to comfort - and yes, storing some externally heated/cooled water under the house would be one way of doing that. Your system sounds to me like a switchable thermal mass, I suspect a well designed passive solar home would achieve similar results for less expense.



something similar was done in the USA in the 60's. One wall of the house consisted of 44gal drums on thier side filled with water. The outer wall was all glass and the inner was brick.
The idea was that the sun warmed the drums in during the day and the heat was released via vents top and bottom of the inner wall into the house and I guess they reversed the process come summer by dropping a blind down the window etc.

[Bushmiller]

Hughie

The concept of an absorbent thermal wall, very similar to your 44gal drums, was developed by the French association of Michel and Trombe who were an architect and engineer, although it was not their original idea. You can follow up a little more on this link:

Trombe wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trombe_wall)

The modified wall was always the idea that interested me as it is used for both heating and cooling. It uses a wall of glass with a dark thermal mass about 300mm behind it and probably 300mm thick too. The thermal wall has vents top and bottom and according to the season there is a sequence to opening them.

I believe it works very well. The problem is that your north facing wall is black. Many people would find this difficult both aesthetically and in practice. It is another difficult home to incorporate into the mindset of a typical brick veneer suburb, particularly if you ever want to stand achance of selling it.

I think perhaps one of the biggest barriers to coping with neccessary change in energy is convention. We are so locked into a stereotype pattern of living that we tend to dismiss many alternatives.

Regards
Paul

[artme]

Anyone watch Insight on SBS 1??

Good forum on eletricity generation, supply and costs.

A thumbnail summary is:

*Cost of electricity will rise for some years to come
*Cost of PV Panels is decreasing down to half what they were 2 years ago.
*Baseload still presents problems . What happens when the sun goes down and the wind doesn't blow?
*How do you store energy generated or collected hrough the day so it can be released at night.
* There are some innovative thinkers and entrepenuers out there.

I wonder if the carbon tax will eventually force electricity prices down/ As PV becomes more efficient and affordable how much less electicity will be provided by burning coal?
Less coal derived electricity should mean lower carbon emissions. How will that be factored into the cost equations?

[damian]

The problem is that people who can take up PV will buy it and probably save. People renting (the landlord does not pay the electricity bill) and those who barely manage week to week will miss out. Meawhile the coal power stations will buy their credits overseas for half what the Australian government expects to get for them, so there will be no money to fund the compensation nor the research projects they have promised.

Perhaps this is a dire scenerio, I'm known to be cynical, but as I say over and over - I am financially ok, they really can't hurt me, but I am loath to infict signifigant, likely and demonstrable economic hardship on others not well equiped to deal with it.

Socialist intent by conservative means perhaps :D

[woodbe]

The problem is that people who can take up PV will buy it and probably save. People renting (the landlord does not pay the electricity bill) and those who barely manage week to week will miss out.

Depends on your worldview.

There are plenty of people who could buy, but still choose to rent. There are advantages to renting that people who buy cannot access. Renters miss out on PV, sure, but they also miss out on paying the capital up front to install it. We know that even with feed in tariffs, payback is 5+ years (probably double that or perhaps never with no FIT) People who rent are not investing capital in the property, possibly they wouldn't be very interested in investing capital in PV either...

People who have insufficient income to make a rent/buy choice miss out, yes. They also feel the pain of cost increases that are coming down the line because of a lack of investment in energy infrastructure for many years now. We are locked into an expensive catch up mode that will see heavy increases regardless of the new tax. Hopefully, the government is as good as its word and will support them adequately. (probably won't happen but we can only hope)

woodbe

[citybook]

There is little doubt that energy prices will rise for years to come - the interesting question is what to do about it.

It has been true in the past that solar doesn't work at night - but now the pressure has come on to develop renewables, it is obvious that there is a huge resource in the air - carbon.

You can use solar to gather carbon from the air during the day and use it for fuel at night.

Sandia Labs is doing "Sunshine to Petrol" - Los Alamos Labs has "Green Freedom" to convert CO2 to fuel - the ELCAT (several European Universities) project is a catalytic process to convert CO2 to hydrocarbons - University of Nottinghan is converting CO2 into natural gas.

I have heard that UQ wants to build a Lackner tower to generate solar methane.

So carbon is the storage.

And of course the Solar Tres in Spain will run all night - base load - storage is molten salt..

So right now we do have technology to do solar base load.

Cheers,
Bob.

[artme]

Renters need not miss out. Wewere told when I brought up the subject of putting PV on a rental house that I would, as the owner get the initial cost outlay off sets but, naturally, the benefits for the use of the system would go to any tennant.

Seems to me that many of us- self included - have not been smart when it comes to installations and their cost. I will bet London to a brick that if a group of owners were to approch the various suppliers of PV they would do better than each acting individually. For owners of investment properties this would provide extra incentive to invest in PV.

[Bushmiller]

Anyone watch Insight on SBS 1??

Good forum on eletricity generation, supply and costs.

A thumbnail summary is:

*Cost of electricity will rise for some years to come
*Cost of PV Panels is decreasing down to half what they were 2 years ago.
*Baseload still presents problems . What happens when the sun goes down and the wind doesn't blow?
*How do you store energy generated or collected hrough the day so it can be released at night.
* There are some innovative thinkers and entrepenuers out there.

I wonder if the carbon tax will eventually force electricity prices down/ As PV becomes more efficient and affordable how much less electicity will be provided by burning coal?
Less coal derived electricity should mean lower carbon emissions. How will that be factored into the cost equations?

Artme

I am sceptical that prices will come down. If and when the carbon tax is in place the price of retail electricity will undoubtedly be higher then now, but the development of alternative power sources will gradually lead to a displacement of traditional fossil powered stations and the price will remain static instead of rising as would normally be the case.

Woodbe has already pointed to 24 hour generation by solar stations using saltbeds, although I don't know how economic it is at this early stage. Remember that the existing thermal stations will pick up night time generation for a long time to come so there is a long lead time to develop technology to overcome this problem.

The initial challenge is to get solar power up and running. Once there is serious momentum it will become the norm.

Just as an aside, back in about 2000 it was the accepted yardstick that the price per MW/hr for a new generator to enter the market was $35. Today, in Queensland, 11 years later, the average price is less than that. Nearly all the QLD generators forecast a loss for 2011 and that was before the imposte of the carbon tax, which will make the market even more grim.

Regards
Paul

[damian]

Depends on your worldview.
woodbe

Hm. I should restate my point.

Energy prices will rise anyway because of infrastructure underinvestment. IMO a seperate issue.

Energy prices will be pushed up more by carbon taxes etc. Whether the energy comes from taxed (and thus artificially expensive coal etc) or "renewables" which aren't used now because they are necessarily more expensive doesn't matter. If you penalise the cheapest option the cost rises. (This is a purely economic argument, I'm not interested in the enviromental aspect, we've already done that elsewhere).

Solar may or may not get cheaper and the payback time may or may not shorten. Either way there is an upfront cost and supposedly savings ongoing to recover that.

Scenerio 1: We continue as we have exploiting the cheapest options. People pay more for electricity.

Scenerio 2: We artificially inflate energy costs above the necessary increases and many of the least able to cope with energy price increases will not be able to access any potential savings solar might offer.

Yes people choose to rent, I wasn't intending to suggest all tennants are on the brink of financial collapse. I was trying to say that the financially vulnerable tend either to be renting or are barely making the mortgage and don't have the disposable income to fund the up front cost.

Hopefully that has made more sense than my previous effort.

Artme:


I will bet London to a brick that if a group of owners were to approch the various suppliers of PV they would do better than each acting individually. For owners of investment properties this would provide extra incentive to invest in PV.

Precisely this happened in queensland a few years back. A residents group got the price of bulk bought standard 1.5 kw systems down from about $3500 to $1500 as I recall. Shortly afterwards Bligher "announced" a similar state government scheme. They stuffed the admin, a few people got cheap systems then the whole shebang fell over. Meanwhile the resident organised scheme had sunk without trace.

Sometimes I want to find the queenslanders who voted labour and one by one smack them some sense. I am not suggesting the coalition are perfect, or even good, but it seems labour really manage to make a hash of everything they touch.

[woodbe]

Hm. I should restate my point.

Energy prices will rise anyway because of infrastructure underinvestment. IMO a seperate issue.

Energy prices will be pushed up more by carbon taxes etc. Whether the energy comes from taxed (and thus artificially expensive coal etc) or "renewables" which aren't used now because they are necessarily more expensive doesn't matter. If you penalise the cheapest option the cost rises. (This is a purely economic argument, I'm not interested in the enviromental aspect, we've already done that elsewhere).

Solar may or may not get cheaper and the payback time may or may not shorten. Either way there is an upfront cost and supposedly savings ongoing to recover that.

Scenerio 1: We continue as we have exploiting the cheapest options. People pay more for electricity.

Scenerio 2: We artificially inflate energy costs above the necessary increases and many of the least able to cope with energy price increases will not be able to access any potential savings solar might offer.

Yes people choose to rent, I wasn't intending to suggest all tennants are on the brink of financial collapse. I was trying to say that the financially vulnerable tend either to be renting or are barely making the mortgage and don't have the disposable income to fund the up front cost.

Hopefully that has made more sense than my previous effort.


Yes.

In Australia, there is much evidence that as a country and as individual citizens we generally tend to go for the smallest short term costs regardless of the benefits of paying a little more in the short term for a better long term result. Energy and Public Transport are cases in point. There are exceptions: Snowy Scheme, public buildings (esp. Federal Parliament)

We are convinced that alternative energy will not work. We know this because we cannot show resulting short term energy costs as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels; therefore we discard it. So we never really try it. That's our lowest short term cost thinking in action. Regardless of the climate issue, we know there are finite resources and we know we have to do something about pollution and environment. We can choose to start early, or we can wait until we must do something. Wait = Pay through the nose to overseas entrepreneurs who got on board early.

Sometimes having 3-4 year terms for parliament is both a blessing and a curse. It's one of the reasons we have little or no genuine long term planning.

If we are going to plan an entire country's energy infrastructure around the ability of the most financially needy to pay for it, we are never going to make the necessary investments to get ahead of the game. It's that simple. If we don't make those investments, market forces will drive prices up anyway. We have a tax system and a welfare system capable of insulating the financially needy from these pressures.

We also have government incentives and handouts to the fossil fuel industry of over $10Bn per year. The fossil fuel industry seems to be doing just fine, maybe we could spend some of that to help the financially needy pay their power bills instead.

meh.

woodbe.

[Bushmiller]

We also have government incentives and handouts to the fossil fuel industry of over $10Bn per year. The fossil fuel industry seems to be doing just fine, maybe we could spend some of that to help the financially needy pay their power bills instead.



If that is true, I just canot understand the reason behind such a level of help.:(

Regards
Paul

[nihilism]

Photovoltaics are ultra low voltage so no licence necessary, the inverter is your bridge between 240 and 12/24 whatever you wire for.


That isn't exactly true when it comes to grid feed inverter setups. You wiil find with most if not all grid feed inverters the panels are wired up in series and you end up with anywhere between 300-600vdc at the inverter input. You aren't allowed to touch it unless you're a licenced electrician and there are also requirements as far as panels go in that they need approvals in order to be connected to a grid feed system so your home made panels could not legally be used in such a way.

[woodbe]

If that is true, I just canot understand the reason behind such a level of help.:(

Regards
Paul

Its been bandied around for a while from a number of sources. Here's one: ACF - Australia spends $11 billion more encouraging pollution than cleaning it up (http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3308)

woodbe.

[artme]

Paul,

I don't recall saying the price of electricity would come down. In fact the prediction is that prices will rise for some time yet. Whether they will them stabilize or fall is a moot point.

The price of PV panels is falling and will continue to do so. For how long is the unknown.

I think what should be looked at more thoroughly in a debat such as this is what percentage of our income goes to pay for energy.This and the increases in the efficiency of systems must surely have an impact on pricing. Just look at what has happened to computers over the last 25 years, or even the last 5 years.

I am fairly optimistic about the future of power generation, although, like yourself, this is tinged with some scepticism on pricing nd the greed of the energy companies and governments.

[hughie]

[I am fairly optimistic about the future of power generation, although, like yourself, this is tinged with some scepticism on pricing and the greed of the energy companies and governments


Yeah the two party system doesnt work much in our favour these days. It would be good if we had elections paid fully out of the public purse this might kerb some of the less than public agendas that go around.

But getting back to energy, theres a mob in the USA that has developed a clear film that can sprayed on the window glass that generates electricity. I gathers its in with the USPO etc. These sort of break throughs are whats going to drive prices in a more friendly direction.

If can find the link will put it up.

[damian]

Yes.
There are exceptions: Snowy Scheme, public buildings (esp. Federal Parliament)


Australian governments at all levels invested properly in infrastructure until the late 70's early 80's, when strategic planning went out the window. As I have said the electorate hired governments lured with short term pork rather than strategic managment. The parlimentry term and the system isn't the problem, it worked in the past. The problem is the short term self centered electorate. Poorly educated and disengaged.




Wait = Pay through the nose to overseas entrepreneurs who got on board early.


I am not convinced this follows.

[/QUOTE]



If we are going to plan an entire country's energy infrastructure around the ability of the most financially needy to pay for it, we are never going to make the necessary investments to get ahead of the game.


True, but unless there is a will in the electorate to do otherwise it won't happen. We have a democracy, for all it's strengths and flaws that is the system we have to work with. We as a people resent being told what to do. If a government is to implement hard policy they either have to get the electorate on board or they do it early in the term and hope everyone has forgotten by the following election. Labour has taken the latter route this time.



We also have government incentives and handouts to the fossil fuel industry of over $10Bn per year. The fossil fuel industry seems to be doing just fine, maybe we could spend some of that to help the financially needy pay their power bills instead.


I don't know the figure but that's probably right. It's a hangover from government owned and operated electricity. As prices rose state governments implemented subsidies to get themselves re-elected. Like Howard's middle class welfare it never went away it only grows.

It's a lousy system.

One more thing. As I might have mentioned previously the idea that we "need to start doing something about pollution" is flawed. It's a common piece of green propoganda. The reality is since the industrial revolution we ahve been "doing something about pollution". Anyone who remembers the opaque smog and acid rain of the 70's knows we have taken signifigant steps. It is a valid discussion to consider if we are doing enough, but to say we need to start implies we haven't started and that is simply untrue.

Solar panels:

If you wire them to low voltage levels then yes you need an electrician, but if the voltages are ultra low you don't. If you feed the panels into a battery bank and run the inverter off that you probably don't need to worry about it, but I'm not an electrician and don't know the regs exactly. My research has been on off grid installations so I may be wrong. I would assume someone looking to do it would ask some questions and not assume an anonomyous person on a forum is giving authorative advice. ?

[damian]

Further on Thorium | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/09/further-on-thorium/#more-44796)

might be of interest. I recall people talking about thorium reactors here. I can't say I know much about them. Some of the comments below the artical are interesting.

WUWT is a climate blog, and what some may term a sceptic's blog. I'm only linking to it because of the relevant artical. You may agree or disagree with the opinions expressed there but if you can be bothered to look they try to be respectful and show a variety of perspectives. Don't blunder in abusing people, not appropriate.

[woodbe]

I am not convinced this follows.


When ideas were freely shared and the requirements for large infrastructure was the will and the available resources you would be right. Those days are gone. You now need the will, the resources and a license to the IP. Australia has had plenty of great ideas that have withered on the vine until they went overseas. When we finally decide we 'need some of that', we have to buy the tech back from overseas corporations at inflated prices.

The exception is when we wait so long for something that the demand in the rest of the world has driven prices down through economies of scale and competition.

Anyway, I think we agree on more stuff than we disagree on. :)

woodbe.

[damian]

Anyway, I think we agree on more stuff than we disagree on. :)

woodbe.

I'm not sure that's the point. I read and contribute to these threads because I hope to learn something, to read other people's perspectives and hopefully contribute some ideas of my own.

I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing with me, in fact I look forward to reading a compelling case and stand ready to change my mind.

What I do object to are arguments like: Just believe me, everyone thinks this is right therefore you should accept it, the giant spagetti monster in the sky told me so it must be right, professor big trousers from sandstone university says so and he's a SCIENTIST so you should go along with it.

I am an athiest and a scientist. I actually have a good deal of respect for people of faith and some of the most admirable people I have ever met have deep convictions of that sort. The problem is if you invoke science to lend weight to your argument you have to then play by the rules. You cannot use the language of faith as a substitute for a reasoned and supported scientific hypothesis.

Most of the contributors to these threads have been respectful, thoughtful and fascinating. I pull people up when they try to sidestep the debate with the arguments of the fanatic.

I have often been wrong. My memory fails me sometimes and I don't have time to check and flesh out thoroughly every statement I make. I usually get pulled up and that's fine.

It's all good. :)

[woodbe]

I have often been wrong.


You can choose to agree with me, or you can choose to be wrong

So if I agree with you, and you're having a 'wrong' moment, am I right?

:D

[damian]

Even when I'm wrong your still wrong if you disagree with me.

No, I'm not female....:D