The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > IEA report advises governments to embrace renewables and nuclear > Comments

IEA report advises governments to embrace renewables and nuclear : Comments

By John Daly, published 16/11/2011

Things are that bad that nuclear is now the best option to beating climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Governments shouldn't be trying to "shape" anything. If they got out of the way and limited their role to ensuring the costs of each generation option are fully reflected in the price, the market would take care of the rest. Nuclear would easily be competitive in most countries (but not Australia).
Posted by DavidL, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 8:29:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This concept is not new, and if the Greens would accept the opinions of the scientists not just when it suits them, they might see that there is no clean energy future without nuclear.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 8:59:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sigh, another one!
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 9:36:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Second Law Of Thermodynamics is CLEAR that all Solar renewables and wind/wave derivitives will require the equivalent amount of fossil fuel energy (in manufacture, transportation, collection and maintainance) as coal fired power stations.

Solar energy is a NOVELTY, with at best a temporary, backup role in energy production.

The IEA as a science organisation OUGHT to know this. Who are they kidding!

Nuclear power, because of mining costs, environmental costs and huge fossil fuel based manufacturing (cement and steel for starters) is not much better over power station lifecycles.

HOT ROCK (@ up to 7KM depths) GEOTHERMAL is the only terrestrial option that will eliminate fossil fuel use over time.

Its taboo to mention Geothermal because Arab-OIL and Peabody coal OWN and RUN this planet.

How scientists get caught up in the lies, how they ignore Basic LAws of physics while besmirching those laws with ingenious but woeful statistical modelling tells me that vested interests, conflicts of interest and grants are more fundamental than any scientific truth.

The Federal Goverment must carry much of the shame because it has been tooling around with GEOTHERMAL in the Hunter for a decade and just lamely pays tons of taxpayer dollars to see vested interests castrate the whole enterprise while talking up IMPOSSIBLE SOLAR options out the side of its collective mouths.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 9:59:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the rant, KEAP.

Now that you have got your pro-geothermal opinions off your chest, how about answering some questions. Here are a few, with my rough guesses as answers.

1. How many geothermal generating plants are there world-wide, excluding those which, like Rotarua, sit on top of active steam geysers? Answer: 1 trial plant, in Europe, about 3MW max capacity.

2. How many Australian test wells have been drilled so far and at what cost?
Answer: Perhaps 10, none yet successfully generating even enough steam for a photo opportunity. Cost: Public subsidies, about $500M, Private funds, a similar amount. Personal reputations: The reputations of Chairmen and CEO's of failed start-ups have hardly been enhanced through their efforts to date.

Yet you advocate this as the only and best hope for the future? I wish that you were correct, but you are certainly and resoundingly not. Far from it. Best of luck, though - perhaps, when the world is about 6 degrees warmer than at present, the remaining human tribes might make it work.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 11:02:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fi, Fye, Fo, Fum, I smell the stink of big COAL.

Phewww!

Get the gas masks!
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 12:17:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just you Kaep.

One does not have to be associated with big coal to disagree with you, just an education is sufficient.

Have you any idea of what the second law of thermodynamics is? I doubt it as it says nothing about the fossil fuel requirements of solar energy collection.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 12:31:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with DavidL to a point. Make the costs real and the market will sort it out...however the CO2 tax attempts to do exactly that and the scheme has failed in Europe. Maybe it's just that the financial types set it up, or maybe putting a "price" on something that is currently free and unlimited (the right to pollute) is like putting a price on human suffering: it doesn't work! (if it did there wouldn't be millions starving)
I'd like to see a private startup make power with new nuke tech and see if it is a cheap as they say...of course the waste problem would have to be costed too, as well as setup and decommission costs which are currently paid for by the states that run nuke power.
Despite KAEP's views, there are solar thermal plants running in desert areas that produce power at similar rates to gas powered plants...the tricky bit is the distribution.
The old "there is no substitute for base-load power" assumes that 1900s electronics will still be used...nice assumption for the coal crowd but we already have the software to cope...so long as we abandon the base-load central grid system and embrace networked power...however that would involve removing the effective subsidies to industry from homes and involve, gasp, real competition and thus less industry profit. Clearly unacceptable! It might involve infrastructure that needs to be paid for rather than profited from. I'm sure SPAusnet is actively lobbying against any sort of decentralised network power grid for the same reason that Telstra loves the copper wires our grandparents paid for.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 2:03:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandy:
1. Get real! There are no such efficient solar thermal plants generating electricity anywhere on the planet. Soon, perhaps, but not yet. Besides which, in order to store heat so that they can operate 24/7 most of the time, or at least 7 hours after sunset, takes tens of thousands of tonnes of melted salts, costing many millions. It's dead calm and raining where I am right now. If I was reliant on solar thermal, PV or wind power, I'd have none. baseload power may be overrated, but it certainly isn't yet possible to run our commerce, industry or even our domestic power supplies without it, unless via hyper-expensive and very limited battery storage.

2. As for Ozandy's assertion that nuclear plants do not fund their own waste storage and dismantling programs, the US scheme which is funded by industry has many times as much money as is needed to do exactly that. Note: not government, private. From memory, it is funded by a levy of a bare 0.1 cent per kWh on all output.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 3:04:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can live without base load power, I did for about 12 years, but it's a low level existence. I tried wind & solar, but they were more trouble than they were worth. I even made up a water power thing, to use while sailing, but again, not worth the hassle.

You see I lived on my yacht, & apart from a few months, when along side a jetty somewhere, with the luxury of shore power, I made my own.

It wasn't much, just a couple of 12V lights, but then I wasn't lighting a ballroom.

My little fridge was gas, as was my 2 burner stove, so it was just light & a radio. No TV or computer, in the simple life.

Having thrown out all alternate power generation gizmos, just a couple of hours of the 6HP diesel, or 3 hours of the little Honda generator would give 2 or 3 days light, for about a liter of fuel, but the diesel was smelly, & vibrated, where the Honda was almost silent, so it did most of the work.

I did not mind it at all, but it's not for everyone. This was highlighted by our eldest, then 4 years old daughter one time. When we were moving ashore for a period she asked, "daddy, will we have real electricity in this house, or just the Micky Mouse stuff we have on the boat".

Out of the mouth of babes.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 4:40:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Livet dangerous, forget the Second Law.

Simple Math, right

Nevada One Solar plant is about 20% efficient in turning solar into electricity,

So that means the best you could ever hope for is it producing 5x as much power.

So even if in the future there are some incredible major breakthroughs where solar cells can convert 99.9% of sunlight to directly electricity

AND the sun operates at maximum efficiency at all times

AND there's no transmission losses to get all this imaginary power to your house...

even in that impossibly perfect world,

a large futuristic solar plant similar in size to Nevada One will still only produce about 1/6th the power of the smallest nuclear power plant Fort Calhoun build 50+ years ago today does.

That is no where near enough, sorry but it is sheer folly to keep throwing money and research at such a self limiting technology with so little potential.

All fossil fuels BTW are also solar energy, millions of years ago plants converted solar energy into growth and when they died that stored up solar energy turned into the various fossil fuels we all know and love today.

That is why solar cells & wind will never compete with fossil fuels, you cannot get what the sun produces in one year to equal what it produced over millions.

f solar was viable in any way we wouldn't have to invest anything in infrastructure, the free market would have already done it.

And if they were viable they wouldn't need subsidies to stay in business

When oil & coal were starting out, government DIDN'T NEED to invest in them!

Once these facts are assimilated, POPULATION CONTROL becomes essential for human survival. That's where all the ANGER arises.

I suspect the real impediment to understanding such simple facts is that soon, someone will have to tell women they can only have 1 to 2 kids per lifetime.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 8:36:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see maths is not your strong point.

Renewable power does work, just as a Porsche can be used to commute to work, in that presently it is hideously expensive. As the corner stone of modern economies is inexpensive power, renewable power is a pipe dream until they become more cost efficient, which may be 3 to 4 decades. While I support beefing up the research from what has been spent in the past 4 decades, it isn't ready now. Nuclear power is available now, and anyone serious on taking action on climate change will embrace it.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 17 November 2011 6:52:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Solar can supplement fossil fuel electricity production, home solar in particular, and thereby act to reduce emissions - solar into the grid by day, fossil consumption at night - and with fossil, and later possibly nuclear, geo, wind etc (time frame considerations) continuing to meet peak (mostly daylight) industry demand. No new transmission infrastructure, as most grid power is already in place. It could also be a win-win if the fossil energy producers would invest in solar manufacture, and thereby maintain their profits. Although there is a fossil fuel cost in solar manufacture, etc, once installed costs are minimal, 20 year life.

Whether PV is only 20% efficient or so is of little consequence, for this only determines the size of the solar array required to meet household etc needs. Reduced output in cloudy weather is simply compensated by extra production the rest of the time. IE, many hands make light work.

In time, office buildings and many industries can be solar supplemented and have ecofriendly air conditioning and climate control, and greenhouses can be established to be eco-positive as well as meeting fresh food demand more efficiently. We seem only to need the will, the technology and the determination.

Unnecessary school halls or home solar? Carbon tax and compensation, or home solar? Fracking, or home solar? Political publicity campaigns or home solar?

Solar may not be able to meet all needs, but it would reduce emissions and would enable everyone to know that they were contributing to a solution rather than being part of the problem. Reduced household electricity bills instead of carbon tax and handouts? Sounds good to me.

Talking of nuclear, what's happened to the idea of thorium reactors?
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 17 November 2011 1:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia can't afford to have sufficient solar panels or grid feed subsidies for 23 million people. Look at the corruption in the O'Farrell government "Make the poor pay for continued power subsidies to the rich" scheme.

Haven't you people seen the global financial situation?

Even if we could violate the second law and get all our solar panels, the coal poisoning required for mfg and transport would be offloaded onto Chinese and Indians. I'm sure that's OK with you lot. But then there's KARMA!

You REALLY believe its ever gonna get better? Learn your PHYSICS!

The Second Law of THERMODYNAMICS IS in play,& DECAY is the order of this day. Because there are 7 billion "YOU's" all wanting to suck every last joule of energy out of the Earth so you can get your rocks off.

You are just going to have to sit back and enjoy the show (with GEOTHEMAL power).

OR get slammed ...@#$@#

And its not that far off./
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 18 November 2011 11:05:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP,

I take your point about the cost of solar, PV in particular. However, though it may not be feasible for all of our 23 million, let alone the 7 billion, if there was sufficient justification (ie proven AGW), and a consequential reasonable government commitment of funds to subsidise home solar and/or to guarantee a reasonable rate for grid input (ie at least equivalent to the take-out rate ($/Kwh), then a reasonable take-up would be feasible. If any subsidy was also subject to an assets test, so as to make installation almost free for those of modest means, and totally free for pensioners, a scheme could be so devised to make it worthwhile for many to go ahead. Every installation would be contributing to reducing emissions and reducing consumption of fossil fuels. Cost vs accumulated gains.

Pensioners and low income families would have reduced overheads accordingly, and could spend more on themselves; the well-off could also have the benefit of reduced overheads; and everyone could feel better about the future of the planet.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with reference to the second law of thermodynamics, but would make the following observations:
1.) If all the light falling on the Earth from the Sun could be harnessed, at any reasonable rate of efficiency, it is my understanding that this would be more than sufficient to cover the entire electricity requirements of all 7 billion, industry, commerce, etc, and more.
2.) Utilising every skerrick of the sun's energy available to us would do nothing to diminish the Sun's energy or hasten its ultimate demise.
3.) Baseload power is a limitation which is yet to be resolved - not that a way can't be found, eventually.

Geothermal: This is not available everywhere, so either its use would be limited or relevant transmission infrastructure would have to be provided. Cost vs gains.

If AGW is Not to be a threat, coal will continue to be burned for centuries. If AGW is a threat, extensive action will be essential. It's only money; maybe the world has to go into debt?
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 18 November 2011 10:39:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

"Utilising every skerrick of the sun's energy available to us would do nothing to diminish the Sun's energy or hasten its ultimate demise."

True. But if we use every skerrick of the sun's energy to generate electricity, that doesn't any leave for plants to photosynthesise with. Let's not be greedy; there's of plenty sunlight to go around.

"It's only money; maybe the world has to go into debt?"

To who?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Saturday, 19 November 2011 12:30:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre, AGW scientists, the IPCC, women intent on the ExtraEQUAL right to overbreed for power and sexualised Global Economists listened while the Thrmodynamator laid it all down. Peak Oil, Judgment Day, the history of things to come. It's not every day that you find out you're responsible for four billion deaths. They aren't taking it well.

The First Law: Energy conservation cannot predict that ice will melt at 20°C, or that water will freeze at -20°C, and it cannot predict that a gas will expand to fill all of the volume available to it.

Another law of nature, the 2LT, is required to predict the direction of spontaneous changes. By “spontaneous” we mean a process that occurs in nature in the direction towards equilibrium (death) and without outside intervention. For example, heat flow down a temperature gradient (LIFE)!) is a spontaneous process. It is possible to transfer heat from a cold body to a hotter one, but this requires “outside intervention” in the form of a heat pump, which uses mechanical energy to accomplish a process that is not “naturally spontaneous”. As soon as the expenditure of mechanical energy ceases the spontaneous process TAKES OVER and the cold body heats up at the expense of the hotter one.

The 2LT also refers to statistical order & says you cannot take a disordered body such as a heated Earth surface and turn it into a more ordered (economically viable) baseload power one. When oil, coal and nuclear BECOME 7 billion times OVER TAXED & too expensive (very soon) the mechanical & electrical energy pumping up the order stops and the disordered bodies become more ordered at the expense of human ECONOMIC sustainability. The thermal equilibrium reached in this case has historically been WAR and EPIDEMIC diseases.

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511974854
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 20 November 2011 7:21:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP,

You paint a fairly grim picture of our prospects, whether we tackle AGW or not, and whether it's real or not. That's a bit prophetic don't you think, I mean we're surely not beyond hope of redemption yet? I think you may be jumping the gun a bit, but let's try evaluating.

There are almost certainly too many of us, at 7 billion, let alone 8, and the natural order of things may be to go from order to increasing chaos (entropy) - and in our case it is principally the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy which has allowed us to maintain and to increase order as far as we have - but at least we're aware there's a limit to our upward progression on the current basis, or at least some of us are aware.

I think there is good cause for many more of us to re-think. Question is, can we re-think far enough and fast enough.

Millions of years of photosynthesis consolidated into a treasure-trove of fossil fuels which we exploit mercilessly; age-old forests we decimate; atmosphere, waterways, oceans and soils which we taint, pollute, render toxic or exploit unsustainably, possibly irreversibly. And, all in the name of progress. We are an astonishing and incomprehensible critter. Talk about soiling and despoiling your own nest!

We have been busy increasing order in areas that interest us - construction, manufacture, facilities and services - while at the same time wreaking havoc on order in many parts of the Earth's natural systems, and ecosystems in particular. We are in fact environmental vandals - at least in the first world, and increasingly in the developing world.

My conclusion? I think you may be a lot closer to the mark than I originally thought, KAEP, and that the downhill run may well be upon us, and quite possibly already irreversible. Hope for greater sanity may be all that is left to us, plus the horse and cart, if we're lucky.

And Richard Branson is developing jaunts to space for a lark. Go figure.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 20 November 2011 10:29:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

GETHERMAL power is different to fossil and nuclear fuels. It is a constant free energy reserve which can be tapped anywhere @ 7KM depths, with available technologies if we can overturn the Animal Farm political cancer with which Federal and State politicians have infected us. Viz: "All Australians are EQUAL only SOME are more EQUAL than others"

Human societies can, together with restraint on rights to breeding, build a sustainable global society which from necessity could inhabit the inner solar system and flourish for billions of years. Currently the prognosis for modern societies is decades!

We need to:

1. FIX current population levels with modest annual decreases,
2. Help women, anti-abortionists & tax-crazed, BIG population politicians understand they must use MIND to get power and not primitive bioloogical, GST generating self abuse.
3. Understand that millions of years of accumulated fossils could NEVER have produced high tech fuels if it were not for the Geological heating and related tectonic pressures from GEOTHERMAL sources.
4. Understand that Oil and Coal miners are NOT our friends. They stand to be the beneficiaries of billions of deaths & are most likely actively planning for that & actively strangling GEOTHERMAL initiatives by embracing them (deadly embrace).
5. Understand that the 2LT predicts the greatest FREE ENERGY gradients (LIFE!) are closest to Mercury, Venus and the SUN itself. Technologies already exist (Messenger II probe) to provide stable habitats. Using materiel from a Low-G Mercury surface can streamline this. Why NASA and the US in contradistinction choose Mars is a doubly worrying signal that the US is not a true friend.

It is my hope that we can put a leash on the Reaganomic dogs, the dogs of OIL and COAL & WAR. Appropriate all the drilling rigs within our realm & then sit back and enjoy the (GEOTHERMAL Free Energy) GFE show while passing on FREE ENERGY to future generations in the form of an inner solar system outreach.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 21 November 2011 3:32:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP,

With your profound fondness for Geothermal power, perhaps you could point to a functioning commercial venture?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 21 November 2011 5:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ian Macfarlane is Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources, which has relevance here.

It would not surprise me if he, Mr Macfarlane had a profound fondness NOT for GEOTHERMAL power but for our Australian 'Animal Farm' Democracy, being a member of the National Party.

Whoever Shadow Minister may be:

1. He does not read or comprehend my point 4. above, that fossil fuel conglomerates have deadly-embraced Geothermal projects.

2. He does not know that University of QLD has major Geothermal projects underway - all funded largely by fossil fuel companies. And that this puts a cloud over their eventual success.

3. He does not understand that we have already reached PEAK-OIL and that Australia and all human societies have just decades to EMBRACE 'hot rocks GEOTHERMAL', before a significant thermodynamic collapse occurs. And that THAT means WAR and plague on apocalyptic scales.

4. He does not understand that all Australian political parties are drunk on worthless US dollars which are being printed by to ton by US Treasury. And that their hangover, and ours is nigh approaching.

"All that year the animals worked like slaves. But they were happy in their work; they grudged no effort or sacrifice, well aware that everything they did was for the benefit of themselves and those of their kind who would come after them, and not for a pack of idle, thieving human beings."

"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas."

- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 6,9,10
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 21 November 2011 10:34:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kaep,

I admit I do not comprehend nor believe your conspiracy theories.

There are a number of serious technical problems around pumping water 7km below the ground that have yet to be overcome, such as the huge volumes of water lost into the rock that are preventing commercialization. The theory that big coal is suppressing government subsidized research is at best quaint.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 21 November 2011 2:22:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Abbott & ALL the Shadow Ministers,

I admit too, I do not comprehend nor believe your disbelief in conspiracy theories.

After ENRON, Lehman Bros, World Bank & closer to home, IMMIGRATING massive numbers of CO2 producing GST-morons when we are paying dearly to halt HUMAN CAUSED climate change are JUST a few of the conspiracies that have got caught out.

The actors in the above conspiracies have in general been declared "TOO BIG TO FAIL" and are still active. Now the rank and file don't know how many conspiracies are still in play. BUT we do know they are there, we know that ENERGY is a particular target as all Governments are desperately seeking to offload energy responsibility as soaring costs are an electoral nightmare.

The notion of FREE ENERGY from GEOTHERMAL is a particular worry. IF energy is essentially FREE there is no profit to be made! Imagine a "too big to fail" fossil fuel company ALLOWING QLD University GEOTHERMAL to get BEST drill rig time?

http://www.uq.edu.au/geothermal/

If I were too big to fail I'd deadly embrace 'em!

We also know that when Tony Abbott and his mentor Malcolm Fraser both force new migrants to live NEXT DOOR to themselves rather than externalising those costs to "the community" then the Liberal Party MAY get reelected sometime again before ARMA-F'ing-GEDDON takes hold.

Conspiracy theories? Nah despite all the evidence you don't have to believe in them. But WE in living under the tyranny don't have to believe in YOU EITHER.

BUT if you don't believe in the second law of THERMODYNAMICS. If you don't believe in "spontaneous decay" of notionally ordered systems whose energy pump is overtaxed and too costly then you, like the "Murray Darling" won't know why you're dying till you're dead.

Oh, if you're still into beliefs above facts, the overwhelming belief here is that the Liberals & all its dopey shadow ministers DESERVE it!
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 21 November 2011 5:37:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy