Smart money is on storing energy, not carbon, says economist

January 8, 2015 by John Quiggin, The Conversation
Renewables or oil? The former means betting each-way on energy storage. The latter means hoping to pull off a trifecta on carbon storage. Credit: Hans Engbers/Shutterstock.com

The question of whether the future will be powered by coal and oil or by renewable energy is crucially important, both to the medium-term future of the Australian economy and to the long-term future of the planet. For either to succeed, there is a storage problem to overcome.

A future based on "clean coal" can only be achieved through the large-scale implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS). That is, the generated by must be captured at the point of combustion and then stored indefinitely in underground repositories, or perhaps in biomass such as trees.

On the other hand, the main sources – wind and – face a different storage problem. Wind is intermittent and solar power is generated only during the day, as well as being affected by cloud cover. So a system dominated by renewables must either use variable pricing to manage demand, or include some form of .

Presented this way, the problem seems symmetrical. In reality, however, the problem of storage has many possible solutions, whereas that of CCS has only a handful, none of which look likely to work. To see why this is so, let's first consider the broader phenomenon of renewable energy.

Cost-competitive renewables

Over the past decade, the cost of , most notably solar, has plummeted. It has now reached the point where, in many locations, it is cost-competitive with new coal-fired power, even in the absence of targets, subsidies or high carbon prices.

At the same time, we have seen significant advances in electric and hybrid vehicles, although market shares remain small. The result is that it is now possible to contemplate an all-renewable energy system, encompassing both electricity generation and electric vehicles, developing over the next few decades.

It is no coincidence that these developments have occurred at precisely the time when concerns about climate change have become pressing. The need to stop burning carbon-based fuels has created both market and non-market incentives to find solutions to the problem. Where carbon prices exist or are seen as likely to exist in the future, they create a demand for any carbon-free technology that will deliver energy in a useful form (electricity or vehicle power).

Bright researchers, motivated both by the importance of the problem and the availability of research funds, have focused their attention on renewable energy and away from other topics that have declined in relative importance (the advice to Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate that "plastics" were the one-word key to a prosperous future comes to mind).

Emissions trading schemes and renewable energy mandates have encouraged firms to invest in the research and development work needed to turn theoretical advances into marketable products. Feed-in tariffs and other incentives have encouraged electricity generators and households alike to adopt these products. In turn, this has created a virtuous circle where growing demand drives cost reductions (because of the economy of scale), which then drives demand still further.

The result is that solar panels are now being installed globally at a rate of a gigawatt every week, almost as much the total amount installed during the 20th century.

There is nothing mysterious about the fact that research into carbon-free energy has been successful. The nature of the problem ensures that the range of potential solutions is vast. Anything that can turn a turbine can generate electricity. That includes physical forces like wind, waves and tides; fuels that can boil water to make steam; and heat differences like those that drive geothermal energy. The energy in sunlight can also be turned into electricity, either by concentrating its heat or through the photovoltaic effect in solar panels.

When the push for renewable energy began in earnest at the beginning of this century, there was no way to know if any particular one of these technologies would be cost-effective or applicable on a large scale. Each represented a bet, at fairly long odds, that the limitations that had previously prevented large-scale deployment of these technologies could be overcome.

But betting on a lot of horses, even if all of them are outsiders, gives a good chance of backing at least one winner. And so it has proved. While geothermal and concentrated solar energy have made only modest progress, and wave and tidal energy hardly any, bets on wind power and solar photovoltaics have proved successful.

Storage solutions

The problem of energy storage can be thought of in the same way. Any reversible process involving energy constitutes a potential storage technology. Going one way, the process uses energy derived from an electricity source that is in excess supply, such as solar panels at noon, or wind turbines turning late at night during low demand. Going the other way, the stored energy is turned back into electricity. Some energy is lost along the way, and other costs must be met, but if the difference in demand is great enough, there is still a net benefit.

The general nature of the storage problem means that the range of possible solutions is vast. The reversible process might involve chemical energy (as in batteries), heat energy (as in off-peak hot water), kinetic energy (as in flywheels) or potential energy (as in pumped hydro). This means that solutions could be found to a wide range of energy storage problems, depending on whether the crucial requirement is cost, speed, or energy density.

Power stations might prioritise cost-effectiveness, for example, or speed and flexibility. Car batteries, meanwhile, need dense energy storage. It will take some time to adapt existing solutions to new requirements, or to develop wholly new solutions. But this process is already under way, and substantial progress is being made.

The carbon horse is a long shot

The contrast with carbon capture and storage is striking. A CCS technology involves three stages, each with a limited range of technological options. First, the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels must be captured before it escapes into the atmosphere. Even the best available technologies involve the loss of up to 30% of the energy generated through combustion.

Second, the captured carbon dioxide must be transported to a storage site. This could be avoided by building the power station close to a suitable site, but that would probably add costs in terms of fuel transport and long-distance power transmission.

The final and most difficult step is the storage itself. The current best approach involves pumping the carbon dioxide into an underground repository, which must be stable enough to prevent leakage over an indefinite period. This approach has proved too expensive except, ironically, in places where the pressurized gas is used to help recover yet more crude oil from depleted wells.

To sum up, if investing in energy storage is like backing every horse on a race, investing in CCS is like a parlay bet), which pays off only if we can pick the winners of several races in succession.

When you think about it like that, it's not surprising that the smart money is on storing energy, not carbon.

Explore further: Matched 'hybrid' systems may hold key to wider use of renewable energy

Related Stories

Coal more risky than renewables

September 5, 2013

Coal-fired electricity may have little or no economic future in Australia, even if carbon capture and storage becomes commercially available, a new analysis has found.

Fully renewable electricity could be competitive

April 3, 2013

(Phys.org) —A carbon price of between $50 and $100 per tonne of carbon dioxide would make coal-fired and gas-fired power less economical than renewable electricity, a UNSW study shows.

Recommended for you

Swiss unveil stratospheric solar plane

December 7, 2016

Just months after two Swiss pilots completed a historic round-the-world trip in a Sun-powered plane, another Swiss adventurer on Wednesday unveiled a solar plane aimed at reaching the stratosphere.

Solar panels repay their energy 'debt': study

December 6, 2016

The climate-friendly electricity generated by solar panels in the past 40 years has all but cancelled out the polluting energy used to produce them, a study said Tuesday.

Wall-jumping robot is most vertically agile ever built

December 6, 2016

Roboticists at UC Berkeley have designed a small robot that can leap into the air and then spring off a wall, or perform multiple vertical jumps in a row, resulting in the highest robotic vertical jumping agility ever recorded. ...

61 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Duude
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2015
The future ought to be thorium-fueled molten salt reactors.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2015
Duude can try his molten salt reactors, but has to keep his high-level waste to himself and his family forever.

Sorry, but those Faustian Bargains are now uneconomical, and never were profitable in the truer sense, with the excessive subsidies.

These developments are the death of coal and probably nukes, as well. The last argument of the Deniers is gone with storage.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2015
A future based on "clean coal" can only be achieved through the large-scale implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS)

On the other hand, the main renewable energy sources – wind and solar panels – face a different storage problem.

So let's combine the two. Large underground cavern with some liquefied CO2 tanks and an 'expanding chamber'. Use excess energy to liquefy CO2 from the chamber and release back (generating energy during the expansion) into the chamber.

Certainly nor optimal in terms of efficiency for either type of storage - but you could get the subsidies for both in a single package.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2015
We have been looking at storage for generations. Hydro is the first successful technology to use it. Electricity maybe the hardest to store, but we now have several techniques to make all alternative energy more probable.

We will not need to store CO2, because we will not be producing as much.
Sigh
5 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2015
The future ought to be thorium-fueled molten salt reactors.
Can't be the only source: http://phys.org/n...rgy.html For one thing, the elements needed to make alloys resistant to neutron embrittlement are in limited supply.

Duude can try his molten salt reactors, but has to keep his high-level waste to himself
There are new reactor designs that can burn waste fuel from light water reactors, reducing the high level waste problem. If you are concerned about radioactive waste, you ought to be in favour of these kinds of reactors.

The last argument of the Deniers is gone with storage.
Despite an unfortunate link between not liking a problem's proposed solution and denying its existence (http://phys.org/n...s.html), one can see problems without being a denier: http://phys.org/n...gy.html. There will need to be a mix of energy sources.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2015
"There are new reactor designs that can burn waste fuel from light water reactors, reducing the high level waste problem. If you are concerned about radioactive waste, you ought to be in favour of these kinds of reactors."
-------------------------------------------------------
We have been promised that for a generation. Show me one way to get rid of radioactivity. One!

We have no business playing with this stuff. I will start to listen after you clean up Fukushima,. Chernobyl, WIPP, and Hanford.. No more pie-in-the-sky promises of magic reactors which eat radiation and turn it into energy until it is all gone.

gkam
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2015
One more step:
http://www.utilit.../346265/

Capitalism will kill Dirty Fuels. Then we can go after the purveyors and users for the health effects of what they did.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2015
The Saudi king is old and with pneumonia, and the line of succession is not firm. The present low price of oil is dependent on the ruler of that nation. The sooner we get off the Petroleum Teat the better off we are in many instances. For example we can scrap three Naval Carrier Groups now used to guard the oil lanes for Saudi oil.

It will be very interesting to see how the energy technology sector shapes up, and which set of technologies will win out.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2015
We have been promised that for a generation.
The research programme was cancelled in the 90s even though I read that was more expensive than letting it finish (don't know why, perhaps payments for breaking contracts).

Show me one way to get rid of radioactivity. One!
As far as I know there is only one. Trigger a nuclear reaction that takes your waste off its decay path and creates fission products that are either not radioactive or short lived. I recommend the book "prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees. ISBN-13: 978-1419655821

I will start to listen after you clean up Fukushima,. Chernobyl, WIPP, and Hanford..

Lightwater reactors are inherently unstable, and need to be actively controlled to prevent meltdown. Passively safe designs can't melt down even if you take away all cooling. What is the point of preventing the introduction of technology that would have prevented Fukushima and Chernobyl melting down until those places have been cleaned up?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 08, 2015
You are correct about LWRs. They were chosen because they produced Plutonium for our weapons, thus creating the waste problems we have today. But no nuclear cycles are clean, and all load upon all of our descendants the legacy of our nuclear folly.

We were promised meltdowns were impossible. Then, possible, but containable in the reactor vessel. Then, not containable in the vessel but in Containment. Then, we got Chernobyl and Fukushima.

But economics are killing them: They are simply too expensive to build and operate. And then, who takes care of the waste?

Fortunately, we may not need Brute Force Power for much longer.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2015
What is the point of preventing the introduction of technology that would have prevented Fukushima and Chernobyl melting down until those places have been cleaned up?
That money is better spent finding a cure for cancers and sequestering these ecological nightmares before they blow. The morons who made these disasters are the same morons now proposing more stabs in the dark. Solar technologies including wind and wave need a full development cycle of two generations before fundamental limitations are realized. Petrol is needed for keeping 5billion humans alive who would die in weeks without oil-powered food
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2015
Kove, where you been? Many of those technologies are already practical and tested. These are not first generation systems.

Ain't no stabs in the dark unless it's some new nuclear Magic Box power system.
simzy39
not rated yet Jan 09, 2015
There's no need to be anti nuclear any more. I really recommend reading this article on the importance of technology neutrality on the TerraPower website, news section. Bill Gate's has the company TerraPower and is going to have a function TWR built by 2023. This type of reactor is the future, along with solar. Eventually solar will win and be our only power source but not until a long time from now.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2015
Peaking systems may have to go away. Good,. They are the most costly and often the most polluting.

Commercial buildings will cover much of their roofs with PVs and greatly reduce their air conditioning and lighting costs. Their spare places will hold electrical storage for the utility.

The idea we need dirty fuels is going the way of Geocentrism.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 09, 2015
Exactly what part of needing reliable electricity 24/7 don't people understand? Solar and wind will only be major players when large scale energy storage is feasible. Transporting power over the grid great distances can help but not fix the entire problem.

Finally an article that I agree with, energy storage is where the smart money will go. In reality, shipping, air travel, heavy equipment and farming will require fossil fuels far into the future.

Nuclear will solve all of it's problems in the near future and remain a vital part of the mix.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2015
"Nuclear will solve all of it's problems in the near future and remain a vital part of the mix."
------------------------------------------------

http://www.utilit.../350636/

Look into Dresden and Kewaunee NPPs.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 09, 2015
Gkam there were reports last year that we were within 3 power plants of blackouts last winter due to high demand in the North. 2015 regulations will or have closed coal plants since then. Vermont just closed a big nuclear plant. So great, close 3 more and then blame the giant power companies when people die. That is how progressivism works.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2015
Nobody is dying, like they did in the Reagan Years when the Republican gas companies cut off gas to the Midwest, and people DIED from it!
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2015
"Nobody is dying, like they did in the Reagan Years when the Republican gas companies cut off gas to the Midwest, and people DIED from it!"

OK that has peeked my interest. Do you happen to have a link for that?

TIA MR
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2015
"OK that has peeked my interest. Do you happen to have a link for that?"
-------------------------------------------

I'll dig it up. There was no internet then, so the references may be sparce. Do you not remember when the "take or pay" contracts led to gas shutoffs somehow, and the Texans at El Paso Gas laughed, "Let them freeze in the dark!"?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2015
MR 166, just look up the phrase I quoted above (Let them freeze in the dark). The listings are too many to copy here.

And I was wrong, it was in the 1970's, under Nixon.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2015
Here is a reference that I could find to "Let them freeze in the dark".

http://www.barryp...a_yankee

It had to do with federal regulations, price regulation of energy and speed limits.

MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2015
BTW "take or pay" contracts are just the opposite of what you are inferring. In essence either you take delivery of the commodity that you contracted to buy or pay a penalty. Nothing is cut off!!!!
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2015
Yes, I know what they are, and they were another excuse to screw the populace by the gas suppliers. Look up how they did it.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 09, 2015
Gkam I see your point. It is similar to Venezuela where there is no merchandise on the shelves because greedy companies and retailers refuse to sell products at legal prices.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2015
Not similar at all.
simzy39
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2015
There is no need for fossil fuels. Talking about planes, farms, and other things reauiring fossil fuels is silly. All vehicles can go electric, including aeroplanes as soon as there is a density increase in batteries, or super capacitors. The waste from CCS is horrible, we really don't want that. Nuclear is what we need, plus solar, and other renewables. Nuclear has 0 omissions and is no longer dangerous. Look at the Travelling Wave reactor coming out 2023.
gkam
2 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2015
"All vehicles can go electric, including aeroplanes as soon as there is a density increase in batteries, or super capacitors."
-------------------------------------------------------
There is already an electric aircraft in final testing.

Oops, there are many for sale, apparently.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 09, 2015
"There is already an electric aircraft in final testing.

Oops, there are many for sale, apparently."

Well when you see one of these pull up to a terminal and load say 25 people and their baggage for a 200 mile flight please let me know.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2015

Why should I bother?
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2015
It is the green energy community's inability to separate real physical possibilities from wishful thinking that is the root of the problem. They have no real grasp on the amount of energy contained in a liter of gasoline, jet fuel or diesel!

If someone were able to design a battery or super cap with the same power to weight and power to volume capacity the failure modes would result in spectacular explosions.

I am not saying that electric automobiles are not a partial solution but that displacing fossil fuels in other more demanding applications is a l-o-n-g way off.
gkam
2 / 5 (12) Jan 10, 2015
The high energy density of liquid fuels? Why didn't we think of that?

My gosh, we need this guy in our field.
gkam
2 / 5 (12) Jan 10, 2015
Snarkiness aside, the energy density problem is why we have not had electric vehicles on the road sooner. They are painfully aware of it, and it is the primary reason for developing biologically-based liquid fuels. The algae and others look promising, with useable analogs of existing fuels.

For now, the battery technology is sufficient for increasingly-practical applicaions, and getting better by the week.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2015
MR 166, just look up the phrase I quoted above (Let them freeze in the dark). The listings are too many to copy here
Just one will do. Are you saying you cant choose one? Give it a try. Or we'll just have to add it to the bullshit pile wont we?
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2015
" They are painfully aware of it, and it is the primary reason for developing biologically-based liquid fuels."

Like corn based ethanol eh!!

Just to let you know Gkam I can be just as "Snarky" as you.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2015
Snarky II
Oh yea, let's not forget the EPA regulations requiring biomass ethanol in gasoline. If there is anything sillier than corn ethanol it is biomass ethanol. You might as well burn dollar bills directly as a source of energy.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2015
"Like corn based ethanol eh!!"
----------------

No, that was the idea of Agribusiness, which owns Congress and who had them give great subsidies to them. Environmentalists were warning of food versus fuel controversies in the late 1970s' early 1980's.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2015
"Environmentalists were warning of food versus fuel controversies in the late 1970s' early 1980's."

Don't give me that crap! The green movement was behind corn ethanol as much as any other sector.
Job001
5 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2015
"idea of Agribusiness, which owns Congress"

Big business(FF, et al) owns Congress. Only 15% of corn is for food or seed. Agriculture is so efficient corn costs only 6 cents/lb vs 600 cents/lb when it gets "on your plate". It is not in the least about food vs fuel.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 11, 2015
I guess 166 was not one of those who checked out my thesis and read it, in1982. True environmentalists warned about it, including me.

Tell jobbie to look up food versus fuel. Perhaps one of the old articles will be shown.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 11, 2015
Hey, 166, here is one from 1980, while I was finishing my thesis.

http://eric.ed.go...EJ226345
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 11, 2015
Hey, 166, here is one from 1980, while I was finishing my thesis.

http://eric.ed.go...EJ226345
Your thesis in what exactly? And from where? You've never said. You only imply that writing this thesis and getting an MS in ? makes you an authority of something or other.

What exactly might that be? And BTW what bearing would a 40yo thesis have on what you know today?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 11, 2015
Storage is going to kill Filthy Fuels. It is the "missing link" deniers seem to focus on, not understanding how grids work, their diversity, extent, and operation sending power both ways.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 11, 2015
If I have permission from many of you, I will answer some of the questions of otto, to shut him up.

It will require several postings.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 11, 2015
I did in a series of postings at

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
gkam
2 / 5 (12) Jan 11, 2015
Otto whines: "Your thesis in what exactly?"
------------------------------------

I explained it to him in the http://phys.org/n...firstCmt thread. Look at what a pathetic little worm he is, when facing reality. Unable to admit error, he mumbles sour grapes.

That 40 year old thesis was greater than anything you have done, otto. It shows us the ways of integration necessary for successful alternative energy development. It also showed you my discussions of the thesis in integration were real.

otto's response was: "Who gives a shit?"
Eikka
5 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2015
Feed-in tariffs and other incentives have encouraged electricity generators and households alike to adopt these products. In turn, this has created a virtuous circle where growing demand drives cost reductions (because of the economy of scale), which then drives demand still further.


That is non-sequitur logic.

FiT is essentially fixing the price of energy so that production can expand avoiding the consequent drop in market price. The demand for the technology is only a result of someone else paying for it. This cannot continue forever because it is essentially a reverse robin-hood tax: taking from those who cannot afford to own property and giving more property and free energy to those who can. There's nothing virtuous about that.

So what happens when FiT is eventually removed as politically and socially unsustainable? The demand drops, prices plummet and most producers go bankcrupt, then prices shoot up as the market normalizes and the real cost comes apparent.
Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2015
Storage is going to kill Filthy Fuels. It is the "missing link" deniers seem to focus on, not understanding how grids work, their diversity, extent, and operation sending power both ways.


It seems like you're trying to argue the issue both ways simultaenously.

Do you mean we do need storage technology to make the grid work with renewable power, or are you insinuating the grid will work without it and the "deniers" who disagree just don't get it?

As for storage technology being a "missing link", that is both question of quality and quantity.

Excluding the existing pumped hydroelectric systems which cannot be further expanded, the storage systems we have today are on the order of Megawatt-hours, whereas the storage system we need are in the Terawatt-hours - a mere million-fold gap to fill.

Which is to say, we essentially don't have grid energy storage.
Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2015
I explained it to him in the (...) thread. Look at what a pathetic little worm he is, when facing reality. Unable to admit error, he mumbles sour grapes


You didn't actually explain anything. You just made bare assertions, which pretty much sum up to:

NO amount of radiation is "safe". You are hoping the rates are sufficiently low they are difficult to track, but we KNOW the effects of that radiation on living things


But this is a discredited hypothesis without empirical support. Repeating it ad-nauseaum doesn't make it true.

Simply put, there are many places in the world where people are exposed to more natural background radiation than standing near the Fukushima reactors, and they're fine. Likewise, no significant differences is seen between people living at sea level vs. up in the mountains where they receieve more radiation from space.

All points to a treshold effect.

Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2015
For example:

The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, Meggitt says, because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control. When you eat a banana, your body's level of Potassium-40 doesn't increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero


Is missing the point.

The banana argument points to the fact that the body does have mechanisms against ionizing radiation, and it stands to no reason to claim that they're attuned perfectly to eliminate the effect of just potassium-40 but somehow not cosmic radiation or radon gas and other radionuclides from the ground etc. which have also been present during our evolutionary past.

I.e. aknowleding that the body has anti-radiation mechanisms forces the linear-no-treshold model to assume that the body somehow deals with natural background radiation, but not with the exact same types of radiation when it comes from man-made sources.

Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2015
Furthermore, the "net dose of a banana" is not zero for as long as it spends time in your gut, because your body temporarily contains more Potassium-40 than it would if you hadn't eaten the banana.

So by eating a couple bananas per day, you're increasing your radiation exposure despite the body attempting to maintain homeostasis with the amount of potassium-40 present in your system. Merely having bananas in your kitchen increases your radiation exposure, which according to the LNT model should linearily increase your probability of cancer.

But it seems to have no ill effect on you.
Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2015
The opposition argument to that is:

When reading "No level of nuclear radiation exposure is safe" it should be understood that the normal background levels are already a given, and that any ADDITIONAL exposure levels only make that 'normal' situation worse.


But the normal background level varies over three orders of magnitude without significant difference in effect proven, so it can be assumed that the total radiation exposure as it falls at least within this range should be considered safe.

And so it seems. Adding up natural background radiation in a location with the exposure from any man-made addition such as nuclear fallout, nuclear accidents and emissions from burning coal, the body seems to cope with anything up to about 10 mSv.

See: http://en.wikiped...troversy

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2015
Are you aware that there is a 1000 character limit for a reason? The occasional double-post...fine. But your habitual walls of text are really starting to be bizarre.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2015
I did in a series of postings at

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
-So your thesis was for an MS in animal husbandry? Dairy science? What?

And how does a 40yo thesis make you an expert on the current science of nukes or energy storage or lung cancer from fallout or high energy alpha or thorium reactors being phased out worldwide?

I'm sorry I'm not following your logic.
it shows us the ways of integration necessary for successful alternative energy development
Doubtful because it was apparently written before many major paradigm shifts in energy generation and usage.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2015
I went over Altamont last week, and got caught in the wind waste from the wind turbine-generators. It was wonderful. Just what we wanted, while we were basking in the Solar Spill.

And, . . otto, go away. You are not qualified to debate me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2015
I went over Altamont last week, and got caught in the wind waste from the wind turbine-generators. It was wonderful. Just what we wanted, while we were basking in the Solar Spill.
More learning by osmosis I see. "I was there!" says gkam.
And, . . otto, go away. You are not qualified to debate me.
Well no I don't have an MS in dairy science, and I never insulted chuck Yeager to his face, but those have little to do with anything discussed in these threads, do they?

I'm certainly qualified to spend 2 minutes researching the bullshit you post and debunking it, which is pretty easy to do.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2015
You do what you want, otto, but I am not going to feed you anything you can distort, twist, or pervert to throw back at me. I gave you my honest experience and education, and you just screamed filthy words at me.

Sorry.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2015
You do what you want, otto, but I am not going to feed you anything you can distort, twist, or pervert to throw back at me
Lets see the last thing you tried to feed was the idea that fallout is the primary cause of lung cancer. Perhaps you learned this in husbandry college?
I gave you my honest experience and education, and you just screamed filthy words at me.

Sorry.
Naw you claimed to be an engineer, and then admitted that you weren't, and then continued to claim that you were, in order to justify your bullshit. That was your first mistake.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2015
I have an excuse for my anger, otto, it is called The Service and the Vietnam War. I endured the stories and episodes in Vet Center Anger Management classes, and do not want to see more acting out. You did not earn yours, like the others, in REAL service.

I am tempted to restore civil discussions, but reluctant to do it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2015
I have an excuse for my anger, otto, it is called The Service and the Vietnam War. I endured the stories and episodes in Vet Center Anger Management classes, and do not want to see more acting out. You did not earn yours, like the others, in REAL service
So THIS gives you the excuse to make up facts and post 40yo slogans and lie about your qualifications?? Like I say, who gives a shit?
I am tempted to restore civil discussions, but reluctant to do it.
'Civil discussions' is not posting the lying drivel you tend to post.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2015
sorry, otto, you're back on ignore.

Bye.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.