Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 51    Average: 3.6/5]
160 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 16201
Rating: 3.6
Category:
Date: 11/27/10 12:00 PM

160 Responses to Subsidize Solar

  1. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 11:41 am
    Link: Subsidize Solar - What if solar energy was subsidized like fossil fuels?
  2. Profile photo of VDragonV
    VDragonV Male 13-17
    103 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm
    America wont change so quickly, if at all.
  3. Profile photo of ruthless1990
    ruthless1990 Female 18-29
    3001 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    meh, i don`t know enough about this subject to make an informed opinion. and this one diagram is not gonna give me enough info to counter act that
  4. Profile photo of DickenMcHunt
    DickenMcHunt Male 18-29
    1299 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    lol.

    I`m actually a member on their website waiting for enough people in my neck of the woods to sign up so we can buy some Solar Panels.
  5. Profile photo of Quackor
    Quackor Male 18-29
    2856 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    who wants to play xbox on a cloudy day anyways
  6. Profile photo of MountainBord
    MountainBord Female 18-29
    1894 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    I LOVE GERMANY, every day my love gets stronger :)
  7. Profile photo of fiizok
    fiizok Male 40-49
    591 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    Fascinating stuff! One has to wonder why our government subsidizes big oil when it continues to be the most profitable industry in the history of the world.
  8. Profile photo of SPARTAKITTY
    SPARTAKITTY Female 18-29
    2123 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    Don`t mean to nitpick, but I thought generations were not set lengths of time. As in, two generations were not 20 years, but a father and a son were two generations. Correct me if I`m wrong :3
  9. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3348 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:31 pm
    I saw a funny comment on a right-wing site called "FreeRepublic"...."I don’t like subsidising Green energy at all, but I don’t seem to have a hell of a lot of choice.


    I guess said poster forgot to ask himself why the oil industry is subsidized.

    If Green energy was any good it would not need to be subsidised."
  10. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3348 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:31 pm
    oops...my post came out all funny...I think youi gey my point.
  11. Profile photo of duffytoler
    duffytoler Male 40-49
    5196 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:51 pm
    Fossil fuel subsidies. Wait - WHAT???
  12. Profile photo of Samsquanch
    Samsquanch Male 30-39
    792 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    Thorium is the way to go. There is so much thorium on the planet, that given current growth and consumption of energy, we would run out sometime around 3000AD. 1 tonne of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3.5 million tonnes of coal. It produces a "cleaner" form of waste than uranium does, and the amount of plutonium it creates doesn`t even register as enough to classify as enough for nuclear weapons research.
    One small "house" sized reactor would be needed to generate a large city.
  13. Profile photo of mmill928
    mmill928 Female 18-29
    275 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    @spartakitty
    It depends on how you are using the word. If you are talking genealogy, then you are correct.
    If you are talking lengths of time, we generally consider a "generation" to be 18 years, since that is usually the length of time for generational differences to become apparent.
  14. Profile photo of mmill928
    mmill928 Female 18-29
    275 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    @Quackor
    Yeah, because that`s exactly how solar power works. It`s not like there are rechargeable batteries attached to the panels, allowing us to store excess energy when the sun is shining brightly and allowing us to use it at night. As we all know, that`s just not possible. :P
  15. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    I have an idea. Let`s quit subsidizing EVERYTHING!!!
  16. Profile photo of DickenMcHunt
    DickenMcHunt Male 18-29
    1299 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:10 pm
    who wants to play xbox on a cloudy day anyways

    Well thanks to solar power we have also been able to develop two new and exciting technologies that would allow Solar Energy to last even when the sun isn`t directly powering anything: Batteries and Capacitors.

    Now, they`re a new technology so give them time.


    Sarcasm aside, the current technology for solar power combined with Wind power. isn`t a replacement for fossil fuels- except in some cases where there is sufficient access to either, or both (Mountain Valleys, Semi-Desert/Temperate Climates.)

    However, if we had National access to solar and wind power we could IMMENSELY REDUCE the need for fossil fuels- also, since solar power and wind power can be owned on an individual basis people wouldn`t necessarily be paying electricity companies for their power, or at least ALL of their power.
  17. Profile photo of DickenMcHunt
    DickenMcHunt Male 18-29
    1299 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:11 pm
    That means more money in your pocket, in most cases. Until solar and wind (and other sustainable energy technologies) are capable of completely replacing fossil fuels the demand for fossil fuels will slowly decline, meaning that cost of fossil fuels will go up- driving more people to cheaper sustainable fuels, meaning less demand for fossil fuels, driving the price up...

    This cycle would continue until affordable sustainable energy over takes fossil fuels and fossil fuels would be manufactured on a much smaller scale- meaning it will last significantly longer, meaning it will be a viable component of energy production for many years. However- the other products that are made from the same materials as fossil fuels will suddenly have an influx of far more resources meaning that the cost of these products would drop- assuming that demand for these materials remains the same. So actually HARVESTING of these fossil fuels is largely unaffected. This means that there will be minimal
  18. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:16 pm
    Why is the government subsidizing ANYTHING?
  19. Profile photo of DickenMcHunt
    DickenMcHunt Male 18-29
    1299 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:16 pm
    @OldOllie

    That`s a fundamentally sound concept- but because we have allowed subsidies without much regulation there are quite a few companies that have grown so large that their competition couldn`t survive without subsidies.

    For instance- throughout the heartland where I grew up there are hundreds (probably thousands) of independent farmers that don`t do business with mega-corps like Monsanto, or Archer-Daniels Midland, or Tyson- etc, etc. Major Agribusinesses that collect subsidies. If subsidies were taken away these corporations would no doubt be able to survive- the small independent farmer? I`m not so sure.

    Things have been out of balance so long that they don`t stand much of a chance if subsidies are taken away.

    Instead we should be FAR more selective and controlling about who does and does not have access to subsidies. Ultimately with the ideal of weening away virtually all subsidization.
  20. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    This is a giant load of bullpoo. There`s no way solar can replace coal -- at least in this century. The cost of solar is prohibitive, and subsidies don`t lower the cost; they just make someone else pay. At the current cost of $3 per watt of capacity (low-end estimate), it would cost over $600 trillion to replace our fossil-fueled generating capacity with a system that only works in bright sunlight. When it`s cloudy or dark, we`re hosed.

    The only energy source that has any hope of replacing coal is nuclear, but the liberal environmentalist wackos have completely destroyed the US nuclear industry. It will take us YEARS before we can even break ground on a new nuclear plant, and that`s if these Chicken Little alarmist get out of the way, which they are showing no signs of doing.

    And if you`re wondering what to do with the waste, we put it in Yucca Mountain, and if you don`t like that, suck it.
  21. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:51 pm
    Things have been out of balance so long that they don`t stand much of a chance if subsidies are taken away.
    I agree that it would be unfair to change the rules suddenly on people and companies who have acted in good faith to play by those rules as they are. But that doesn`t change the fact that government subsidies are not only blatantly unconstitutional, they are a very bad idea economically. If I business cannot survive by providing a product or service that people are willing to pay for voluntarily, then that business should not survive. There is no moral justification for forcing people to pay for something they don`t want, or to overpay for something they do want, just to provide an incompetent, inefficient producer with a guaranteed income. It doesn`t matter if that incompetent producer is a multinational corporation or a family farm. If they can`t sell their stuff for more than it costs, we`ll just have to go without it.
  22. Profile photo of SPrinkZ
    SPrinkZ Male 18-29
    2275 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 1:56 pm
    Old Ollie you are really showing your age. Solar panels currently get about 20-25% of the energy at the higher ends of the scale. Eventually it will be like plants 95% or so. It`s not only economically feasible and responsible, it`s necessary.
  23. Profile photo of dynamites111
    dynamites111 Male 18-29
    76 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    Hydro power FTW!
  24. Profile photo of Samuelsoon
    Samuelsoon Male 18-29
    346 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    *Why is the government subsidizing ANYTHING?*

    because capitalism doesn`t work. Think about it this way. Without subsidies most food production companies wouldn`t be able to sell their products at a price lower-income families could afford. So instead of only rich people being able to buy food, we all pitch in to make food cheaper, allowing everyone to eat. Which i think everyone can agree is a good thing.
  25. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 2:43 pm
    SPrinkZ, I used current figures. If efficiency increases by 100% (theoretically impossible) and cost decreases by 80%, the cost is still 4 time greater than our entire GDP, and you still haven`t figured out what you`re going to do at night. Energy storage is far more expensive than energy production. For instance, a car battery costs about $50. Yet it only holds about 10 cents worth of electricity.
  26. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3146 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    The amount of space it would take solar panels to work in the same capacity as coal would probably cover the entire US. Won`t work.

    Let`s take an example from Europe, France specifically. Roughly 80% of France`s energy comes from nuclear energy. The also export electricity. So why not kill two birds with one stone and get cheap electricity for everyone, while raising the country`s income.
  27. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    @Samsquanch

    YES! I was reading about that a while back. I, for one, think it seems like a good idea. I mean, I haven`t checked a lot of sources, but from what I HAVE seen, there`s TONS of the stuff, it produces more energy than Uranium, it`s cleaner and less dangerous than Uranium, and small reactors can be fitted into our current infrastructure with little effort. Over-all, it`s just straight-up cheaper while we`re at it.

    The claims are probably exaggerated quite a bit, but still... The way they say it, a shoe-box sized reactor could power entire city blocks.

    Why HAVEN`T we gone through with some of these systems yet?
  28. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:01 pm
    Yeah, because that`s exactly how solar power works. It`s not like there are rechargeable batteries attached to the panels, allowing us to store excess energy when the sun is shining brightly and allowing us to use it at night. As we all know, that`s just not possible. :P

    It isn`t possible.

    You can do it on a very small scale as long as not many other people are, but then you have to factor in the cost of the batteries - environmental and financial (batteries are very environmentally dirty). They`ll need replacing quite often, as the maximum charge reduces on every charge cycle (and over time even if you do nothing with them).

    The idea of using batteries to store power on a national scale is ridiculous. There is no practical way to do so, which is why national grids are so complex. The only way that works is building artificial lakes, pumping the water up during the day and letting it drop back at night through a hydro station.
  29. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:06 pm
    The claims are probably exaggerated quite a bit, but still... The way they say it, a shoe-box sized reactor could power entire city blocks.

    Why HAVEN`T we gone through with some of these systems yet?

    i) They don`t exist yet. It`s possible on paper, but it isn`t even at the early prototype stage yet.

    ii) It *is* possible to make a nuke with one. Not quickly, but considering that the whole idea is to have a very large number of cheap small ones, any group with moderate amounts of money could buy several, stick them in a cave (they`re self-contained) and harvest weapons-grade nuke material from them. Al-Quaeda would love them.
  30. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    because capitalism doesn`t work.
    Samuelsoon, the idiot(s) who taught you that should be put up against a wall and shot. Capitalism works every place and every time it`s tried to the degree that it is allowed to function. What always fails is government regulation and central planning.

    Saying that capitalism doesn`t work in a heavily regulated economy is like riding a horse off a cliff and saying that horses don`t work. Horses do just fine till someone who thinks he knows better than the horse forces him to jump.

    If you want to feed the poor, the worst possible way to do it is to subsidize inefficient farmers. It`s far better to let the inefficient farmers fail and sell their land to someone who can produce more food for a lower cost. That means more total food for a lower total cost. Then if you want to help the poor, give them money or vouchers to buy food at the free market price.
  31. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:12 pm
    Old Ollie you are really showing your age. Solar panels currently get about 20-25% of the energy at the higher ends of the scale. Eventually it will be like plants 95% or so. It`s not only economically feasible and responsible, it`s necessary.

    It is not currently economically feasible, so it sure as hell better not be necessary.

    It`s possible on paper, but it requires massive investment, large-scale building to put the HVDC lines in and the political will to destroy ecosystems on a huge scale to make county-sized power stations.

    Even then, it can`t power a country unless you have a transcontinental grid and a massive oversupply available every day of the year so the excess can be sent to wherever it`s night. Which is only just about theoretically possible.

    Solar can play a much bigger role, but to rely on it would be madness.

    While you`re making up magic numbers for efficiency, why not just make up matter-energy transfer inst
  32. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:13 pm
    Capitalism works every place and every time it`s tried to the degree that it is allowed to function.

    As long as you`re rich and other people dying doesn`t bother you.
  33. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    ii) It *is* possible to make a nuke with one. Not quickly, but considering that the whole idea is to have a very large number of cheap small ones, any group with moderate amounts of money could buy several, stick them in a cave (they`re self-contained) and harvest weapons-grade nuke material from them. Al-Quaeda would love them.
    Yeah, I read that too...

    Still, rather than going with a lot of small set-ups, couldn`t we just go with singular large set-ups and protect them like we do any nuclear reactor?
  34. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:17 pm
    "Capitalism works every place and every time it`s tried to the degree that it is allowed to function."


    As long as you`re rich and other people dying doesn`t bother you.
    Stole the words right out of my mouth...
  35. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:30 pm
    Capitalism works every place and every time it`s tried to the degree that it is allowed to function.

    As long as you`re rich and other people dying doesn`t bother you.

    Stole the words right out of my mouth...
    Apparently the 100 million+ people who have died under socialism don`t seem to bother you guys very much. Oh, well, they were counter-revolutionary pro-capitalist scum. They deserved it, right?
  36. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    The amount of space it would take solar panels to work in the same capacity as coal would probably cover the entire US. Won`t work.

    Hmm...interesting. I`ll look at just the Mojave desert and get some rough numbers.

    Peak solar energy at the ground is about 1KW/m^2, but that`s at noon on the equator.

    Say about 9KWh/m^2/day for the Mojave desert.

    Mojave desert size is ~57,000,000,000m^2.

    So that`s ~ 513,000,000,000 KWh/day.

    513 PWh/day.

    You`d need a lot of access area for maintainance and to avoid some reflectors being in the shadow of others, so say you`d be able to cover about a third.

    171PWh/day.

    Top CSP plants can have a total conversion efficiency of about 10%.

    17 PWh/day. ~6200 PWh/year. Say 20% loss in distribution across the USA, with is feasible with the best available transmission methods. ~4960PWh/year.

    2007 USA use was 3,892 PWh.

    Not the entire USA.
  37. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:41 pm
    Apparently the 100 million+ people who have died under socialism don`t seem to bother you guys very much. Oh, well, they were counter-revolutionary pro-capitalist scum. They deserved it, right?

    Yes dear, of course they did. Now have your cookies and milk and run along to bed.
  38. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:48 pm
    Patronising, I admit, but I`m hardly likely to respond seriously to the argument that the only two possible choices are totally uncontrolled rule by the wealthy without any laws or tyranny a la Hitler, Stalin or Mao tse-tung.
  39. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    Yes dear, of course they did. Now have your cookies and milk and run along to bed.
    Do you really want to go with that answer? It`s an obvious admission of defeat, but if you like, I`ll give you another chance. What do you have to say about over 100 million human beings who have been slaughtered in the name of socialism?

    Seriously, I want to hear you try to defend Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, and all the rest of your socialist heroes. Tell me how much better they were than those evil capitalists Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln.
  40. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:55 pm
    Well thanks to solar power we have also been able to develop two new and exciting technologies that would allow Solar Energy to last even when the sun isn`t directly powering anything: Batteries and Capacitors.

    Anyone who uses that argument is badly undermining the idea of solar power. If you want to advocate for it, stop making that bloody stupid argument because anyone who knows anything about the subject (or who spends 10 minutes learning something) can immediately see how bloody stupid it is. The entire idea of solar power is contaminated by the stupidity and that drags it down.

    If large-scale storage of electricty was possible, it would be done already. That would be far less trouble and far cheaper than constantly varying supply to match the ever-changing demand.
  41. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    Do you really want to go with that answer? It`s an obvious admission of defeat, but if you like, I`ll give you another chance.

    And I`ll repeat my answer:

    I`m hardly likely to respond seriously to the argument that the only two possible choices are totally uncontrolled rule by the wealthy without any laws or tyranny a la Hitler, Stalin or Mao tse-tung.

    You`re making as much sense as if you were arguing that the only possible choices were infection with one fatal disease or infection with another fatal disease and so no-one can possibly ever live past 30.

    Your argument is raving nonsense and I gave it the reply it deserved.
  42. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:12 pm
    You`re making as much sense as if you were arguing that the only possible choices were infection with one fatal disease or infection with another fatal disease and so no-one can possibly ever live past 30.
    No, I`m arguing for no disease at all. A little socialism is like a little disease. You`re the one who says we should all live out our lives with chronic diarrhea, a headache, and a stuffy nose.
  43. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:13 pm
    madest, if people are stupid enough to vote for socialism, it`s still socialism. How you got there is academic. And our government isn`t "a democracy that`s been hijacked by corporate interests." It`s a constitutional republic that`s been hijacked by democracy which has in turn been hijacked by all sorts of special interests, corporations being only one. Others include unions, entitlement recipients, government employees, environmentalists, and the list goes on.

    A democracy is nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. A representative democracy is 51 wolves and 49 sheep electing a representative to the lunch committee. In that case, can you blame the sheep for hiring a lobbyist and contributing to the campaign of the incumbent to try to influence him not to pass a law making it legal for the wolves to eat them?
  44. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:19 pm
    madest, socialism is just like diarrhea. You can live with it up to a point before it kills you.
  45. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:21 pm
    The so called `fossil fuel subsidies` this infographic claims, Are actually `Green` subsidies for things like bio-diesel, ethanol, coal gasification, etc... The oil industry doesn`t get subsidies for refining oil, They get subsidies for the `Green` projects that they do. Solar energy is not sustainable, Not cheap, Not reliable, And not efficient, At least not at our present level of technology.

    If the thorium fuel cycle reactor project had the subsidies and research money invested in it, That solar energy does now, We wouldn`t need coal for power plants in 10-20 years.
  46. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    And regarding you assertion that Stalin, Mao, and the rest were not socialists, I`m reminded of the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: " You`re entitled to your own opinion, but you`re not entitled to your own facts."
  47. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:27 pm
    That wasn`t an answer that was an admission that you were wrong. I heard it loud and clear and it`s OK blowhard.
    madest, you can`t win an argument by getting your ass kicked and then claiming victory.
  48. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:30 pm
    OK Ollie I`ll play your retard game. Of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro and Kim Jung Il which one was elected?
    If you want to play the game, you have to answer the question that was asked, not one you made up yourself. The question was not which one was elected. The question was, which ones were socialists? The answer: all of them.
  49. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:31 pm
    madest: Socialism and Communism are the same, The only difference in the two is to what degree the government owns the means of production.

    Since the government owns controlling interest in both GM and Chrysler, All of The Postal service, All Passenger rail service, All governmental services, All of the primary educational institutions, Will own most of the health care and health insurance industries, And has vested interests in many others; We are, As Newsweek pointed out, All socialists now.
  50. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:36 pm
    CrakrJak, I see my old tag-team partner has joined the fray. I`m going to have to log off before too long. It`s good to know you`re here to carry on. ;-)
  51. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:38 pm
    madest: Btw, `elections` in a one party system (that outlaws all other parties) in a socialist or communist state is a cruel joke.
  52. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    "It *is* possible to make a nuke with one. Not quickly, but considering that the whole idea is to have a very large number of cheap small ones, any group with moderate amounts of money could buy several, stick them in a cave (they`re self-contained) and harvest weapons-grade nuke material from them."

    Yeah, I read that too...

    Still, rather than going with a lot of small set-ups, couldn`t we just go with singular large set-ups and protect them like we do any nuclear reactor?

    That would solve the immediate problem but if I understand the idea then if it can be made to work at all then it will definitely work on a small scale. It will take brilliance to make them possible, but only competence to build one after other people have figured out how. So terrorists could build their own small ones. Not easily or cheaply, but it might happen. It`s fundamentally unlike current nuke programs, which have to be huge and expensive.
  53. Profile photo of taylor_stone
    taylor_stone Male 30-39
    2688 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    So what if we subsidized cold fusion? >.>
  54. Profile photo of IshiiDaFishy
    IshiiDaFishy Male 18-29
    773 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    "Solar power is not sustainable"

    Thats right, Crakr. If we use too much of this virtually unlimited, vastly untapped resource, it will run out.
  55. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    No, I`m arguing for no disease at all. A little socialism is like a little disease. You`re the one who says we should all live out our lives with chronic diarrhea, a headache, and a stuffy nose.

    An extremist communist would say the same about capitalism and you. You`re not just as bad as they are - you`re the same thing. They`d have us all disposible tools of the oligarchy and so would you. Their oligarchy would be the party, yours would be the company, but the effect on the indentured peasants would be the same.

    You`re arguing for one extreme and pretending that the only other choice is a nominally opposite extreme that`s actually much the same thing. Disease or disease.

    I`m saying you are ludicrously wrong to pretend that there`s nothing in between. That`s what I`m arguing for - neither of the diseases of extremism.
  56. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:45 pm
    madest, all you`re doing is redefining your terms to try to disassociate yourself from the failures of your philosophy. It`s just like how liberals are now calling themselves "progressives" because liberalism has been discredited. They forgot that progressives started calling themselves "liberal" when the term "progressive" became discredited in the last century.

    Whatever you call it -- communism, socialism, Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, progressivism, fascism, liberism, or any number of other euphamisms -- it all boils down to the same thing: government control versus personal liberty. I favor the latter; you favor the former. Your track record sucks, so you try to change the terminology in hopes that no one will notice that you are advocating the same failed policies of centralized government control (planning, regulation, direction, incentivizing, disincentivizing, etc.) that has failed every time it has been tried.
  57. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    IshiiDaFishy: I suggest you read up on all the materials needed to make solar panels, We simply do not have enough, And the primary sources of much of the material needed to make them are mined in places with horrific human rights records.

    So by all means, Let`s enslave even more people to provide for a boondoggle that can`t survive without huge subsidies.
  58. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:52 pm
    So what if we subsidized cold fusion? >.>

    We do. So does the USA. Many countries do, because it`s like a winning lottery ticket, only more so.

    But optimistic experts are talking about possibly having sustainable economic fusion (i.e. continuously more energy output than input) by 2050, if all goes well. Maybe.

    It`s not a bet to put all your chips on. We need other options that are viable before then. A mixed bag is probably the best approach.
  59. Profile photo of rikakitty
    rikakitty Female 18-29
    683 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:55 pm
    Solar power is incredible, it`s just difficult and expensve to start.
  60. Profile photo of IshiiDaFishy
    IshiiDaFishy Male 18-29
    773 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 4:56 pm
    Crakr, I was referring to solar power, not panels. Other power can be made from the suns energy, not just electricity. Solar desalination plants, check `em.
  61. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:01 pm
    IshiiDaFishy: I suggest you read up on all the materials needed to make solar panels, We simply do not have enough, And the primary sources of much of the material needed to make them are mined in places with horrific human rights records.

    We do have enough, way more than enough, for CSP. It`s basically just mirrors and water. You could mix it with some photovoltaic, so you could use heat and light, but CSP on its own could be a useful part of electricity generation and could generate at a reasonable cost. It`s useful for load balancing because it generates when demand is high.

    Some CSP, some wave, some nuclear, some hydro, some geothermal, some wind...you could make a working system that way, varying the proportions for local conditions.
  62. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:03 pm
    madest, I never said anything about conservatism. I was talking about CAPITALISM. Actually, I`m a libertarian. I have my disagreements with some conservatives on social issues, but at least I can engage them in intelligent debate.
  63. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    madest: So by process of elimination the only force for liberty is conservatism?

    No, There is Libertarianism and Anarchists as well.

    Also, When America was much more `conservative` than we are today, We never made everyone worship the same God, And didn`t spy on all citizens. We also didn`t treat sex like a sport, Or treat mental disorders as lifestyle choices.
  64. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:10 pm
    Angilion: The sun doesn`t always shine and wind doesn`t always blow, They are unreliable sources that do not integrate well into a grid whose customers demand reliable power.
  65. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:19 pm
    [quote">Solar power is incredible, it`s just difficult and expensve to start.[/quote">

    For the extreme case:

    The EU is talking about 400 billion Euros for the Desertec scheme. But they`re talking seriously about doing it.

    Short answer: Huge CSP plants in north African deserts generate 500GW and run 24/7 (yes, they can run at night). They also turn seawater into a vast supply of pure drinkable water, which is a very useful extra benefit locally. HVDC lines carry it into all of Europe, under the Mediterranean.

    Long answer - see all the Q&A link on this page.
  66. Profile photo of taylor_stone
    taylor_stone Male 30-39
    2688 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:23 pm
    @ Angilion
    And that is why I have the most profound respect for you. You give intelligent recourse.

    And I DO love a debate where both sides show some intelligent feedback. Now, without getting myself too deeply involved with the current debate (I`m not up to studies on government), I DO believe that there is no such thing as a CORRECT form of government because different forms work well for different societies.

    To me, it would be like living in a city where there was only vegetarian restaurants allowed to open on every other corner. What if someone lives in the city that wants to eat food with meat in it? That one person isn`t going to change the way the city works. No matter what kind of government you want to call it, the FEW who desire change are outweighed by the needs of the MASSES, or their complacency with the system they have going... Very rarely is a government`s mindset shifted by the acts of a lone zealot...
  67. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:25 pm
    Angilion: The sun doesn`t always shine and wind doesn`t always blow, They are unreliable sources that do not integrate well into a grid whose customers demand reliable power.

    This is what I actually wrote:

    Some CSP, some wave, some nuclear, some hydro, some geothermal, some wind...you could make a working system that way, varying the proportions for local conditions.

    The sun shines reliably in some places and I`m talking about CSP, not PV. Heat is always hot.

    Waves are reliable in some places. Like Britain. We could theoretically meet all our requirements a few times over from wave alone 24/7.

    Geothermal is reliable in some places. Like Iceland.

    Nuclear is reliable anywhere.

    Hydro is reliable in some places.

    Wind is only reliable if you can get enough height in some places, but it`s there.

    So do you have a counter-argument for what I actually wrote?
  68. Profile photo of taylor_stone
    taylor_stone Male 30-39
    2688 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    "We also didn`t treat sex like a sport"

    You mean it ISN`T?

    Damn it... And I was seriously gunning for that gold medal in the next Olympics...
  69. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:32 pm
    And I DO love a debate where both sides show some intelligent feedback. Now, without getting myself too deeply involved with the current debate (I`m not up to studies on government), I DO believe that there is no such thing as a CORRECT form of government because different forms work well for different societies.

    I`m open to the theoretical possibility of a single correct form of government, but I`m sure such a thing doesn`t exist, never has existed and probably never will. Not with humans, anyway. We`re realistically looking at the least bad form of government for the time and place.

    Some good quotes about democracy are attributed to Winston Churchill:

    It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
  70. Profile photo of Tisjokar
    Tisjokar Male 18-29
    985 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    If we use solar power... THE SUN WILL RUN OUT OH NOES!
  71. Profile photo of gorgack2000
    gorgack2000 Male 13-17
    4683 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:01 pm
    @Tisjokar- Eh don`t worry, we`ll just restart it with a massive nuke. That`ll work, right?
  72. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:01 pm
    The sun will run out. Not soon enough to care about, but it will run out. Can`t fuse forever.
  73. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:03 pm
    Angilion: I just believe that solar and wind is a waste of limited resources for a limited benefit.

    Thorium nuclear reactors are the best bet, I believe, And it has the backing of the former director of CERN.
  74. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    Angilion: I just believe that solar and wind is a waste of limited resources for a limited benefit.

    Fair enough. I disagree regarding solar. Wind I`m far from convinced about. Kite wind power works on paper and in small scale, but I`m not convinced it canbe safely scaled up.

    Thorium nuclear reactors are the best bet, I believe

    Shame they don`t exist and when they do they`ll add to the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation. I think they will probably exist and will probably be useful, but I wouldn`t commit the future to a single source for electricity generation. Especially one that doesn`t exist yet.

    And it has the backing of the former director of CERN.

    And CSP has the backing of numerous scientists (who are sure it will work) and business people (who are sure they can make money from it).
  75. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:21 pm
    Angilion: Actually Thorium reactors will not add to the threat of nuclear proliferation. Thorium is not readily made into bomb fissile material, It would just take way too much time and energy to do that.
  76. Profile photo of som-tam
    som-tam Male 18-29
    713 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:29 pm
    5 years ago i was working on a building site where they were installing a solar panel on the building and it was estimated that it would never pay for itself. they aren`t cost effective... yet. maybe one day but not yet.
  77. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:38 pm
    [quote">Angilion: Actually Thorium reactors will not add to the threat of nuclear proliferation. Thorium is not readily made into bomb fissile material, It would just take way too much time and energy to do that.[/quote">

    The Thorium cycle generates U233 and can easily be made to generate Pu239, either of which can be used to make nukes.

    The whole point of it is to make U233 - that`s what`s used for power.

    This explains the risks.
  78. Profile photo of razordragon
    razordragon Male 18-29
    336 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:42 pm
    Humans will be gone before the sun, don`t worry. the Sun is expected to last 4.5-5 billion years...
  79. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:44 pm
    5 years ago i was working on a building site where they were installing a solar panel on the building and it was estimated that it would never pay for itself. they aren`t cost effective... yet. maybe one day but not yet.

    They`re being promoted in the UK purely for political reasons.

    The UK. Sure, it has temperate weather for it`s latitude, but it`s nearly as far north as Norway!

    Under the best possible conditions here, the repayment time on domestic solar panels is approximately 5 times the working life of the panels.

    So the previous government committed a lot of public money to ridiculous subsidies for it, to get people to use it. Companies install the panels for free and pocket the huge subsidies to make a profit.

    It`s madness. Solar is viable in some places, but not here. Except for calculators and suchlike.
  80. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    Humans will be gone before the sun, don`t worry. the Sun is expected to last 4.5-5 billion years...
    Yeah, I realized pretty quickly after I asked it it was a stupid question. Of course we`ll be gone by then. Either we`ll have moved off to other worlds, or we`ll have killed ourselves off.

    Still, I just want us to get off this planet before we destroy it, or ourselves, with stupidity.
  81. Profile photo of zlatan
    zlatan Male 18-29
    292 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 6:50 pm
    angilion: the sun is set to explode in about 5 BILLION years. and when the sun explodes, i think the last of our worries will be worrying about our next energy source.
  82. Profile photo of Airclot0
    Airclot0 Male 13-17
    58 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:04 pm
    I think the clear answer here is to stop focusing on ONE solution.

    Lets use solar, geothermal, wind, hydro and any other energy producing technique you can think of.

    By themselves they may not be enough, but together they are enough.
  83. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:16 pm
    Angilion: Linking an anonymous persons blog is not good science. The only country to even attempt making a bomb out of U233 was the USA and after testing deemed it to impractical. It`s much easier to make bombs out of yellow cake Uranium and with fewer risks to it`s creators. That is why Thorium is not considered a dangerous material.

    Plus you need a particle accelerator to get the reaction going to make U233, Without that energy sustaining the reaction the U233 quickly degrades back down to Thorium, There is simply not enough time to make a bomb with it.

  84. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:30 pm
    Angilion: Linking an anonymous persons blog is not good science.

    Which part(s) were wrong? Ignore the author and examine the content.
  85. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    Angilion: The part about making bombs from it and I already addressed that in my previous reply.
  86. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    "Angilion: Linking an anonymous persons blog is not good science."


    Which part(s) were wrong? Ignore the author and examine the content.
    Sorry to say this, but stop trying.

    Crakr has a talent for ignoring any facts by discrediting the source. If he doesn`t like it, there`s something wrong with it that makes everything it says automatically wrong. $5 says he didn`t even read the page the first time he clicked it, he just saw it was an independent blogger and discounted it.

    Never mind checking the "About" page, or reading some of their other posts to learn a little about the blogger.
  87. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:44 pm
    It`s much easier to make bombs out of yellow cake Uranium and with fewer risks to it`s creators.

    What are the risks with U-233? If you`re thinking of gamma rays, that`s U-232. U-233 is relatively safe to work with.

    U-233 goes bang if you ram enough of it together with a very simple gun-type nuke.

    It might be easier with materials that are much harder to get hold of, but that`s not comforting.

    Without that energy sustaining the reaction the U233 quickly degrades back down to Thorium, There is simply not enough time to make a bomb with it.

    The half-life of U-233 is ~159,000 years. That is not "quickly".
  88. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:45 pm
    Angilion: The part about making bombs from it and I already addressed that in my previous reply.
    I`d say someone with a degree in nuclear engineering knows more about what he`s talking about when it comes to what it takes to make a nuke, as compared to someone who read a file or two about the Manhattan Project...

    Besides, just because they dismissed it back then, doesn`t mean things haven`t changed.
  89. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:45 pm
    Angilion: The part about making bombs from it and I already addressed that in my previous reply.

    So no details (did you read it?) and a reply I`ve already shown to be wrong. Or, as you might say, not good science.
  90. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:46 pm
    I believe the Wiki page on it explains it better than I can with a 1000 char limit.
  91. Profile photo of schmemly
    schmemly Female 18-29
    80 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 7:51 pm
    I was braced for this one to be from the same place as the food infographic...
  92. Profile photo of Salted_Eggs
    Salted_Eggs Male 18-29
    774 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 8:05 pm
    CrakrJak,
    There are a couple things wrong with Thorium: It`s rarely been used and it can be unstable. Besides, why bother when you can utilize Geothermal, perfecting solar power, wind power, tidal and wave generators to power the planet. Geothermal alone can buy us enough time to do the rest but I suspect we`ll have to run out of oil before anyone attempts to move forward, too much money involved.
  93. Profile photo of DickenMcHunt
    DickenMcHunt Male 18-29
    1299 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 8:44 pm
    "The idea of using batteries to store power on a national scale is ridiculous. There is no practical way to do so, which is why national grids are so complex."

    Not really. For hundreds of years we have used boilers to heat our water- virtually every home with a device typically between 2-3 feet in diameter and standing anywhere from 4 to 7 feet tall. The concept of every home having it`s own batteries is very practical.

    Also- home`s could have their own source of solar power and wind power, as well as pull power from industrial scale solar and wind farms AND gain electricity from nuclear. If we were also able to improve the efficiency of the average home- we coudl use elecricity and have more of it on hand- to the point that it would be cheaper for some Canadian/Mexican cities to buy elecricity from teh U.S. Grid.

    probably a Pipe Dream on that last notion- but people that don`t dream are letting their brains rust.
  94. Profile photo of DickenMcHunt
    DickenMcHunt Male 18-29
    1299 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 8:48 pm
    "17 PWh/day. ~6200 PWh/year. Say 20% loss in distribution across the USA, with is feasible with the best available transmission methods. ~4960PWh/year.

    2007 USA use was 3,892 PWh.

    Not the entire USA."

    I`ll be honest: I`m not 100% sure what your intention was, with this post. From what I see, you`re saying that all of America could have been powered by a solar array 1/3rd the size of the Mojave desert with around 1,000PWh/Year surplus.
  95. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 9:05 pm
    Altaru: I`d say the former director of CERN has a lot more knowledge of nuclear physics than any of us. But let`s just ignore the potential to make safer, Less waste producing, Efficient nuclear power plants, Rather let`s invest in dead-end, unreliable, Solar and Wind projects, All because the word `Nuclear` scares some lily livered types.
  96. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 9:18 pm
    This situation,



    Is a hell of a lot more dangerous than any proposed Thorium reactor development.
  97. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 9:19 pm
    DickenMcHunt, I mentioned this in an earlier post, but it seems to have been overlooked.

    A car battery costs about $50, and it holds about 10 cents worth of electricity. We`re a LONG way off from any kind of practical overnight energy storage.
  98. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 9:53 pm
    OldOllie: Actually Ollie you can get batteries that will hold a charge overnight. The problem is it takes a ton of old nickle-iron batteries, That are only made in China and Russia now.

    They have numerous disadvantages compared to newer types of cells, But they are appropriate for wind and solar power. They charge slowly and can only discharge slowly, Much heavier, But last 20 years or more.
  99. Profile photo of falloutchik
    falloutchik Female 18-29
    78 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    @CrakrJak
    Yeah being afraid of nuclear produced energy is like, totally lily livered. I mean like, hey, nuclear technology can totally not hurt like a fly, but solar energy makes like bombs and like dangerous stuff. Nuclear energy tot has no risks, is like way super safe w/ people and stuff, it can`t make you all like sick like solar panels, w/ the tot safe garbage stuff that can practically be like put in your mom`s kitchen garbage, it`s super duper more life-stuff friendly than solar panels
  100. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 10:13 pm
    CrakrJak, you`re right. There are a lot of battery technologies that are better than lead-acid in one way or another, but as far as cost per watt hour of storage capacity, they`re still about the best thing we have. If we had anything better in that regard, we`d be putting them in cars today.

    You can get higher capacity in watt hours per kilogram, which is a necessary requirement for hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles, but it comes at a much higher cost per watt hour stored.

    We need to improve storage technology by an order of magnitude before it can be truly practical to run your air conditioner, dishwasher, lights, TV, and computer after dark.
  101. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 10:45 pm
    falloutchik: You may not know this but The majority of France`s energy is produced by nuclear power and it`s been very safe for them for several decades now.

    The Thorium fuel cycle is even safer than the Uranium-Plutonium fuel cycle that France currently uses.

    Your sarcasm is telling, Too bad it`s still based on negative propaganda from the likes of Greenpeace and Sierra Club.
  102. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3146 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 11:24 pm
    Crakr, you forgot to mention that France exports a good portion of their excess electricity.
  103. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 27, 2010 at 11:26 pm
    falloutchik, solar energy isn`t without its risks.
  104. Profile photo of serrastar101
    serrastar101 Female 18-29
    10 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 12:05 am
    One of it`s sources is Wikipedia.
    Which even my easygoing teachers don`t let me use.
  105. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25407 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 12:32 am
    Meh....
  106. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 12:48 am
    "The idea of using batteries to store power on a national scale is ridiculous. There is no practical way to do so, which is why national grids are so complex."

    Not really. For hundreds of years we have used boilers to heat our water- virtually every home with a device typically between 2-3 feet in diameter and standing anywhere from 4 to 7 feet tall. The concept of every home having it`s own batteries is very practical.

    A water tank is made cheaply from extremely common materials.

    Batteries are not.

    Water tanks rarely need replacing.

    Batteries do, due to charge loss.

    It`s easy to produce and sustain enough water tanks.

    It`s impossible to produce and sustain enough batteries.
  107. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 12:55 am
    Also- home`s could have their own source of solar power and wind power

    A couple here in the England built a house from scratch to be as energy-efficient as possible and spent £30,000 on solar power for it. It is the best case scenario for domestic solar power.

    It cuts their electricity bill by about £100 a year.

    Domestic solar is only useful in some parts of the world, and even then we can`t make and sustain anywhere near enough PV panels even if cost is ignored.

    Solar power kit than can be mass-produced is based on mirrors and it works, but it requires a very large land area so it doesn`t work on a domestic scale.

    Wind is worse, unless you own a fair few acres of land in the right place.

    So yeah, at great expense homes could generate a small part of the electricity they use. Assuming no-one uses electric vehicles.
  108. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 1:03 am
    I`ll be honest: I`m not 100% sure what your intention was, with this post.

    I thought that was clear when I quoted the statement I was replying to and gave step by step estimates and calculations explaining why it was wrong. My post was on Saturday, November 27, 2010 3:40:24 PM, so it`s still there.

    From what I see, you`re saying that all of America could have been powered by a solar array 1/3rd the size of the Mojave desert with around 1,000PWh/Year surplus.

    You`d need almost all of the Mojave desert (or, more accurately, that much land area in places that sunny), because in practice a massive CSP plant only uses maybe a third of its area for power. The rest is used for access to the kit for maintainance and for spacing to ensure that the mirrors don`t shade each other.

    But you wouldn`t need to cover all of the USA in a solar power station - that was the statement I was arguing against.
  109. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 1:08 am
    We need to improve storage technology by an order of magnitude before it can be truly practical to run your air conditioner, dishwasher, lights, TV, and computer after dark.

    Or have a genuinely practical EV, etc, etc.

    It might happen, though. There are several projects that could yield an order of magnitude improvement over Li-ion batteries. The STAIR battery, for example. That`s at the prototype stage. They`ve got a fivefold increase in charge to weight ratio so far and think a tenfold increase is possible.

    But it still uses Lithium and it still loses maximum charge over time. It`s far, far better than what we have, but it`s not viable for storing an entire country`s worth of electricity storage.
  110. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 1:13 am
    I believe the Wiki page on it explains it better than I can with a 1000 char limit.

    You dismiss unread an article by an expert with a doctorate in nuclear engineering because you haven`t heard of their name and you`re quoting Wikipedia as a trusted source.

    Now there`s a WTF moment.
  111. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 1:18 am
    Too bad it`s still based on negative propaganda from the likes of Greenpeace and Sierra Club.

    Or articles by experts with doctorates in the field.

    There *are* risks involved with nuclear power. Your advocacy of it that completely ignores them doesn`t help the case for using nuclear power, because any checking reveals that you`re wrong...and if you`re wrong about that, what else on the subject are you wrong about? It taints the parts you are right about.
  112. Profile photo of Airclot0
    Airclot0 Male 13-17
    58 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 1:41 am
    All of this talk of yellow cake is making me hungry! You guys debate while I go get some lemon cake.
  113. Profile photo of Tamiflu
    Tamiflu Male 30-39
    10 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 2:47 am
    OldOllie, you `re really serious with this?! The "risks" you linked sounds in my German-European ears more like a primitive clumsy lobby campain from some atomdudes.
    A mix from renewable clean engergies is the future, which maybe could be supended for a while but finally not be stopped.
  114. Profile photo of DieZahl23
    DieZahl23 Male 18-29
    61 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 4:46 am
    I didn`t read all previous comments.
    But in Germany subsidies goes to farmers who put huts on their land which have solar power on the roof top.
    On televison i heared they replace farming land from milk cow meadows.
  115. Profile photo of SephirothA83
    SephirothA83 Male 18-29
    955 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 5:08 am
    @Angilion

    regarding the wiki source, you must be new here
  116. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 7:31 am
    Angilion: You are still taking an anonymous blogger`s word over an esteemed nuclear physicist`s, That has taught other PHDs in the field. You`re going take this guys word as gospel over Rubio`s, When he won`t even reveal his identity ?

    Sorry, But lobbing criticism anonymously from the peanut gallery does not impress me.
  117. Profile photo of steve17
    steve17 Male 13-17
    155 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 8:03 am
    I still think the best idea would be a mix of Nuclear and Renewable energy
  118. Profile photo of BrimstoneOne
    BrimstoneOne Male 30-39
    2229 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 10:20 am
    Future power options fission power, fusion power, solar electric power, wind/wave power, last but not least bio-mass fuel reactants. Fossil fuels are going the way of the dinosaurs. They (fossil fuels) HAVE becomes prohibitively expensive to extract from the earth, and the easy to get to stuff is running out (surprising quickly by some sources).

    Arguing over the "viable" alternatives is waste of time and energy, since it`ll take multiple power sources for a `modern` society to function. That is if one wants to not have a modern society like those in extreme fundamentalist religious `camps` of "non-thought". The world is in the middle of big shake up change, you can either shape the direction, or have the changes direct the shape of the life you (or your kids and grand kids) will likely deal with.

    Adapt or die, that are the options. Anything "status quo" will be `sitting duck` to the steamroller of change that is bearing down upon u
  119. Profile photo of BrimstoneOne
    BrimstoneOne Male 30-39
    2229 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 10:21 am
    us all
  120. Profile photo of BrimstoneOne
    BrimstoneOne Male 30-39
    2229 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 10:22 am
    damn I`m wordy today...
  121. Profile photo of Volsunga
    Volsunga Male 18-29
    1548 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 10:36 am
    Solar is not a logical option except in the market of the individual consumer. Geothermal, water (where available), and nuclear would be the most efficient "clean" options.
    The most efficient way to do this is if Solar roofs became affordable without government subsidy (in other words, wait 5 years) and could network a grid controlled by the power companies that have either nuclear or geothermal plants to back up the heavy traffic hours.
  122. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 3:14 pm
    OldOllie, you `re really serious with this?! The "risks" you linked sounds in my German-European ears more like a primitive clumsy lobby campain from some atomdudes.

    Angi, I think you need to get your German-European ears checked.

    When you`re attributing a quote to someone, who wrote it matters. Otherwise you do things like the above - quoting Tamiflu`s post and claiming I wrote it.
  123. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    Angilion: You are still taking an anonymous blogger`s word over an esteemed nuclear physicist`s, That has taught other PHDs in the field. You`re going take this guys word as gospel over Rubio`s, When he won`t even reveal his identity ?

    If I was, you`d have a point.

    But I`m not. So you don`t.

    Also, use your own "argument" on yourself - you`re taking Wikipedia over experts with a detailed argument.

    I`ll explain again.

    My point is the content. I`ve provided some, from someone who should have a clue. You`ve provided nothing apart from a false appeal to an authority that you don`t have. If you could quote Rubbia addressing the issue and explaining why the content of that article is wrong, then your appeal to authority would have merit. But all you`re doing is quoting his name. You haven`t even read the article.
  124. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    Solar is not a logical option except in the market of the individual consumer.

    Solar is a more logical option on a large scale - it`s free, non-polluting, the source of the energy will last longer than Earth itself and you can get up to 1KW/m^2. The main thing is that is requires a lot of space, i.e. something most individual customers don`t have.

    The most efficient way to do this is if Solar roofs became affordable without government subsidy (in other words, wait 5 years)

    Photovoltaic panels to cover a whole roof (a) cost as much as the house (b) are made from rare materials in a very complex manufacturing process. The idea that they`ll become affordable in 5 years is unrealistically optimistic.

    To be continued...
  125. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 4:00 pm
    ...

    So let`s say a radical breakthrough occurs and somehow someone finds a way to make PV panels simply from plentiful materials. There`s no sign that will ever be possible, but it`s what`s necessary for your argument.

    So now you have many millions of low-output solar power generators feeding into the grid in an way that can`t be controlled from the grid. It adds up to a large, unpredicatable and variable feed into the grid, and that`s something you really do not want.

    Of course, however it`s done, solar is only useful as a serious power supply in some parts of the world. In most of the world, its use would be practically limited to things such as handheld computer chargers.
  126. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    I`ll address those risks OldOllie linked to anyway, even though it`s really rather silly to compare them with the risks of highly radioactive waste and terrorist groups with the means to make nuclear bombs.

    Mold in the storage unit (which even the link says is a very low risk if it`s made properly). Only applies to domestic PV water systems, which I`m not advocating.

    Toxic fumes in manufacturing. Yeah, like that`s uncommon. Factories deal with it all the time, for all sorts of manufactured items. Only applies to PV, which I`m not advocating.

    Land disturbance. The only relevant one to what I`m advocating, and one that I have emphasised over and over again as a serious issue. Of course, that won`t stop OldOllie claiming I`m ignoring it.

    Hazardous waste...OK...PV panels that have to be replaced about every 25 years aren`t something that should just be dumped in a landfill. Tiny woo. Also in breaking news, factories have waste products.

  127. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    Also...mold in the storage systems...OMG, seal off the city, call the HAZMAT people and shoot anyone who tries to leave!

    I get mold in my bathroom sometimes. So I clean it off. Without a HAZMAT team.

    Fire hazard...yes, like any electrical system. Only applies to domestic PV, which I am not advocating.

    Apart from land disturbance, it`s all trivial stuff that is routinely dealt with anyway and only applies to PV that I`m not advocating.
  128. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    Not really. For hundreds of years we have used boilers to heat our water- virtually every home with a device typically between 2-3 feet in diameter and standing anywhere from 4 to 7 feet tall. The concept of every home having it`s own batteries is very practical.

    A copy from an earlier post. It`s still wrong:

    A water tank is made cheaply from extremely common materials.

    Batteries are not.

    Water tanks rarely need replacing.

    Batteries do, due to charge loss.

    It`s easy to produce and sustain enough water tanks.

    It`s impossible to produce and sustain enough batteries.
  129. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 4:29 pm
    Talking about handheld computer solar chargers reminded me of someone who`s Youtube channel I`m watching. He lives off the grid in a remote rugged woodland area he owns and he`s well into building stuff he can use. Like 4 buildings, a sawmill, a road, a hydroelectric power station, a solar water heater...and a giant spidery robot he can ride on.

    Here`s his video on how to make a simple solar power charger for handheld kit. You could buy the components new for about $15 - small low-efficiency solar panels are cheap.

    How to make a solar charger
  130. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 6:33 pm
    Angilion: Your anonymous blogger`s content is invalid because practically anyone can say they have a PHD, When they are anonymous, Even if they don`t. Content alone does not cut the mustard for credibility.

    I could post a link to a pdf file Rubio contributed to explaining the Thorium Fuel process in detail, Using scientific terminology and calculations, That would likely fly right over your head, But I usually like to spare people that sort of bewilderment.
  131. Profile photo of niceguy191
    niceguy191 Male 18-29
    169 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 7:01 pm
    Why not just build a Dyson sphere? Then we would have all the solar power we could ever need! :D

    It might need a subsidy or two to get off the ground though....
  132. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 7:38 pm
    Content alone does not cut the mustard for credibility.

    Content is all that matters for credibility, unless you`re an adherent of a cult of personality. If something is true, it is true regardless of who says it.

    Rubbia is brilliant, but you can`t simply use his name as a magic eraser for anything you don`t like. You may as well just say that Zeus doesn`t like it.

    If you had something from Rubbia arguing why the content of that article (and also others) is wrong, then relative authority would be of some relevance. But not much. Science is about the content, not who delivers it.

    But you don`t have that.

    I could post a link to a pdf file Rubio contributed to explaining the Thorium Fuel process in detail, Using scientific terminology and calculations, That would likely fly right over your head, But I usually like to spare people that sort of bewilderment.

    And it would be completely irrelevant to this
  133. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 7:40 pm
    Why not just build a Dyson sphere? Then we would have all the solar power we could ever need! :D

    It might need a subsidy or two to get off the ground though....

    I think the interstellar travel needed for a Dyson sphere would need a couple of subsidies of its own first. There isn`t enough matter in the solar system to build one, even if anyone knew how.

    A Niven ring would probably be better. There are a whole bunch of problems with a Dyson sphere that a Niven ring addresses.
  134. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    When you`re attributing a quote to someone, who wrote it matters. Otherwise you do things like the above - quoting Tamiflu`s post and claiming I wrote it.
    Sorry, Angi, my bad. I`ll delete my post and repost a correct version.
  135. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 8:10 pm
    OldOllie, you `re really serious with this?! The "risks" you linked sounds in my German-European ears more like a primitive clumsy lobby campain from some atomdudes.
    Fami, I think you need to get your German-European ears checked.

    First, why are you hearing things when you`re reading text on your computer screen? Do you have to read out loud to understand it?

    Second, all I was trying to say was that every form of energy involves risk including solar. falloutchik was making it out to be all rainbows and unicorns when it`s obviously not.
  136. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 8:21 pm
    Angilion, I checked out your "How to make a solar charger" link, and that was quite impressive. I figure that on a nice bright sunny day, that rig could generate enough energy to run my home air conditioner for almost 25 seconds!
  137. Profile photo of Heilsquav
    Heilsquav Male 18-29
    21 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm
    Thorium fuel reactors are too good to be true... Just google it and see it for yourself.
  138. Profile photo of ROK9
    ROK9 Male 18-29
    1834 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 9:05 pm
    nice. give me free energy please
  139. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 9:15 pm
    Angilion, I checked out your "How to make a solar charger" link, and that was quite impressive. I figure that on a nice bright sunny day, that rig could generate enough energy to run my home air conditioner for almost 25 seconds!

    That would be a great counter-argument if anyone was advocating using it to power your air conditioning.

    But they weren`t, were they?

    It does the job it was intended for, it does it for free and it costs maybe $15 to make. It`s fit for the purpose it was intended for.

    He also powers his home lighting, minor power tools, TV, games console, etc, from PV solar.

    It`s of some use in some circumstances.

    You might not have noticed, but I`ve been consistently arguing that PV solar, especially domestic PV solar is nowhere near good enough to replace a proper power system. Have you got me mixed up with someone else again?
  140. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 9:34 pm
    Thorium fuel reactors are too good to be true... Just google it and see it for yourself.

    Yeah, just search online for it.

    You`ll find references to thorium nuclear reactors *that have already been built and used*.

    Most the references in this thread are to the energy amplifier thorium reactor idea from Carlo Rubbia, which doesn`t yet exist. However, his theorising is sound, his experiments to prove the concept work and he`s being backed with huge sums of money by people who aren`t idiots and they obviously think it will work.
  141. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 10:25 pm
    Angi, I`m just in a crappy sarcastic mood right now. Actually, I like PV solar for some applications. For instance, those school zone speed limit signs that say "SPEED LIMIT 20 WHEN FLASHING." They use LEDs and only operate for a couple of hours a day. It`s much cheaper to put up a PV panel than it is to put up poles or dig trenches to run electric lines to them.

    Nevertheless, the thread is supposed to be about using solar to replace coal for electric power generation, and there`s no way in hell it`s ever going to do that in our lifetimes.
  142. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 10:48 pm
    Not getting into the debate as I don`t know enough about the subject - despite working in the energy industry (Hydrocarbon Exploration Geoscientist, I draw Xs on maps and show them where to drill), I know pitifully little about solar energy. Shame on me, I freely admit.

    However, I find it entertaining that Crakrjak, who made the original logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority, can`t even spell the name of the scientist in question correctly.

    Crakr, you keep calling him Rubio. That`s not his name. Angilion on the other hand, correctly spells his name Rubbia, on multiple posts, which you haven`t picked up on. I`d also like to quietly congratulate Angilion on not stooping to cheap shots on how you`ve mis-spelled his name again and again.

    I`ll happily deliver the low blow in Angilion`s place, as he is discussing a higher-level argument, and has been admirably magnanimous in sticking to the topic rather than stooping to the temptation of Grammar-Nazism.
  143. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    And that blow is: Crakrjak, how can you even pretend that you know what you`re talking about when you can`t even spell correctly the name of the scientist you quote? I doubt you have any understanding of the scientific principles you espouse beyond what you read on Conservative web-blogs.

    I could easily suggest myself as an expert on how evolution is false (as you do) by disseminating the works of Richard Dawkings or Charles Darwing. I could even posit the existence of God and question that the universe is billions of years old (as you do) by criticizing the scientific papers of Stephen Hawkins.

    But understand, to anyone reading your posts, they may think along these lines: "If this guy can`t even spell the name of scientist he`s quoting, then he probably doesn`t understand, or for that matter even read the article, of the science behind it."

    Just saying.
  144. Profile photo of BigMordecai
    BigMordecai Male 18-29
    94 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 11:14 pm
    Impressive arguments, but what this comes down to economics. The primary issue with solar power are basic diminishing returns of manufacturing and large scale inefficiencies and remember while the light is free the components and repair are not. These sources are currently known not to be viable on a large scale and I would gamble many parts were simply disregarded in the calculations of statistics. I agree it will dominate but when dealing with Thorium, countries like India and other developing nations will rely on it with low waste. Accelerator based sub critical fission is extremely viable as it burns through waste and produces no dangerous waste while requiring no refinement. This is a future technology which using economic differential equations has been shown to be large scale viable. These resources comparatively are extremely cheap with few negative externalities if any. People have to remember that these functions are based on diff eq. not simple functions.
  145. Profile photo of BigMordecai
    BigMordecai Male 18-29
    94 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 11:21 pm
    Also for reference I am in support of both Thorium reactors generally and the ADS.
  146. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 11:40 pm
    [quote">Nevertheless, the thread is supposed to be about using solar to replace coal for electric power generation, and there`s no way in hell it`s ever going to do that in our lifetimes.[/quote">

    It could partially do so, if it`s done right and the scale is large enough.

    One of the most ambitious projects is Desertec. It`s entirely solar power and they`re looking at supplying 20% of all electricity to Europe, the UK, the Middle East and north Africa. This isn`t small-scale.

    It sounds pie in the sky, but they have backing all over the place, work has started on the foundations of it and the EU is seriously talking about finding the money for it. At the other end, countries in north Africa are laying groundwork and making politic agreements. All the technology for it already exists. It`s doable.

    Desertec
  147. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 28, 2010 at 11:50 pm
    The primary issue with solar power are basic diminishing returns of manufacturing and large scale inefficiencies and remember while the light is free the components and repair are not.

    True of PV, not so true of CSP. CSP also has the side benefit of producing very large quantities of very pure drinking water from seawater. Since CSP works best in deserts, countries with deserts close to a sea are very interested. Hundreds of millions of litres of drinking water is very handy in those places, maybe as much as the income from exporting electricity.

    Accelerator based sub critical fission is extremely viable as it burns through waste and produces no dangerous waste while requiring no refinement.

    Lovely idea, but it`s not actually true.

    You do end up with less highly radioactive waste, but not none, and it does require some refinement.

    It`s better than current fission, but it`s not perfect.
  148. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 12:49 am
    davymid: So sue me, I misspelled his name. Interesting how you congratulate Angilion for not stooping to `Cheap Shots`, But are willing to stoop that low yourself.

    It`s just like a liberal to nitpick someone to attempt to discredit them.

    I however am not going to go grammer-nazi on Angilion for misspelling the word theorizing.

    In short, Go blow it out your ass Davy.
  149. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 4:40 am
    " however am not going to go grammer-nazi on Angilion for misspelling the word theorizing."

    You know we freely interchange between -ize and -ise on this side of the pond, right?

    Ok just checking...

  150. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 5:03 am
    As an environmentalist my money is on nuclear. Its doable now, doesn`t take up much room, and as a side benefit - a few small nuclear skirmishes could do wonders for the real problem - overpopulation.
  151. Profile photo of Ryan22158
    Ryan22158 Male 18-29
    418 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 6:54 am
    In about three years i should be laughing at all of this while I sit at the console of a nuclear reactor. Americans are pretty stupid because we keep supporting coal, and pretend that it is the only energy source we have. Nuclear is the way to go. It creates much more power for practically nothing. Also, we can just drop the waste off in space on those fancy new shuttles we will have in about 20 years.
  152. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 10:09 am
    I however am not going to go grammer-nazi on Angilion for misspelling the word theorizing.

    i) People who prefer to be roughly correct in their use of language are not Nazis.

    Where did this "moderate position is Nazism" crap come from? Some raving idiot, obviously.

    ii) When making a spelling flame, don`t call it a grammar flame. That just makes you look ignorant.

    iii) While we`re at it, don`t spell `grammar` incorrectly while you`re doing it.

    iv) `theorising` is the correct spelling in English. It might not be in American English, but I`m not using American English.

    You crashed and burned bigtime on this one.
  153. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 10:12 am
    Nuclear is the way to go. It creates much more power for practically nothing. Also, we can just drop the waste off in space on those fancy new shuttles we will have in about 20 years.

    You are joking, right?
  154. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    davymid: So sue me, I misspelled his name. Interesting how you congratulate Angilion for not stooping to `Cheap Shots`, But are willing to stoop that low yourself.
    Yep, I even said that`s exactly what I intended to do, right before I did it.
  155. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    Anyway, I`d hardly call it a cheap shot or being pedantic. As stated previously, you`re employing the logical fallacy Argument from Authority while clearly not having any understanding of the science behind the subject in question. To such an extreme in fact, that not only have you not even read the material, you don`t even know the correct spelling of the authority`s name. Like I said, I`d discredit someone in the very same way if they were to describe how they`ve come to the conclusion that evolution is a lie having read through the works of Richard Dawking. That is very different from pointing out a simple type.

    Heck, I`m a professional scientist with a PhD, and even I said I wouldn`t opine on the subject at hand as I don`t have the scientific knowledge in this area to make an intelligent contribution. Seems to me like Angilion does, though.
  156. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 1:34 pm
    I however am not going to go grammer-nazi on Angilion for misspelling the word theorizing.

    In short, Go blow it out your ass Davy.
    As Angilion has already pointed out, he`s English, so he`s using English English. Only in American English is it spelt "theorizing".

    Yes, spelt.
  157. Profile photo of kilroy5555
    kilroy5555 Male 30-39
    496 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 2:12 pm
    We`re going to run out of coal in 20 years?! Give me a break!
  158. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm
    davymid: not only have you not even read the material, you don`t even know the correct spelling of the authority`s name.

    Derive all from me misspelling Rubbia`s name did you ?

    Davy, I Posted the damn subject months ago here on IAB. I can assure you I`ve read several articles and Rubbia`s own .pdf file on the Thorium Fuel Cycle. I didn`t get a college degree in science by not knowing atomic physics.

    Once again you`ve assumed to know everything about someone based on bullsh|t.

    Take your elitist attitude and shove it, Mr. Knowitall.
  159. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    November 29, 2010 at 11:28 pm
    Take your elitist attitude and shove it, Mr. Knowitall.
    As I`ve already stated, I have a PhD. So it`s "Dr. Knowitall".

    See what I did there?
  160. Profile photo of Spider_sol
    Spider_sol Male 18-29
    1452 posts
    November 30, 2010 at 7:14 pm
    Wait, they give degrees in "science" now?

Leave a Reply