Scientific American: How Can Humanity Avoid or Reverse the Dangers Posed by a Warming Climate?

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=avoiding-dangers-of-climate-change

November 30, 2009

How Can Humanity Avoid or Reverse the Dangers Posed by a Warming Climate?

With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise, strong efforts will be required to reverse global warming

By David Biello

Wetlands from Bangladesh to Florida submerged. Drought and devastating heat in important granaries such as the Yangtze floodplain in China or Ukraine. Rains that come too often or too hard in India or the U.S. Northeast. The list of potentially devastating impacts from climate change is a long one. But with greenhouse gas emissions continuing to climb and concentrations in the atmosphere rising by roughly two parts per million (ppm) a year, climate catastrophes are looking more and more imminent.

"Today's greenhouse gas levels (387 ppm) would already be plenty high enough to cause over two degrees of warming even if we stabilized concentrations tomorrow," says physicist Myles Allen of the University of Oxford. "Two degrees isn't 'safe,' in that there will be negative impacts for many regions and systems even with two degrees of warming, but anything over two degrees starts to look much more serious."

So how do we keep global average temperatures from warming more than two degrees Celsius? Scientists have begun to turn their attention to answering this critical question now that the potential impacts of climate change have become clear. The solutions offered range from a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide to an end to forest-clearing for agriculture.

Past is prologue?

Today's climate situation could appear relatively benign. After all, digging into the geologic record for climate change reveals that previous periods, such as the Eemian interglacial more than 130,000 years ago, have been nearly this warm. "On a global average it was around 1 degree Celsius warmer," says climate scientist James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). But "it was still the same planet. It was not that different."

…

[endless october]

1. not Kyoto or Copenhagen, that's for sure.

build nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric. more than we need in anticipation for future growth in demand / electric cars.

encourage the planting of forests.

bring manufacturing back to America. the cheap labor countries are not concerned with pollution outside of how much they can make from carbon credits and the exodus of jobs leaving America because we actually are concerned. we should enter no treaty with these nations.

cap and trade is a scam, and it's a scam we'd do well to avoid.

either we want to solve the problem or we don't. cap and trade doesn't solve the problem.

[joshcryer]

7. Copenhagen will probably result in some emission reductions, but it won't be nearly enough.

The US will only commit to some small projected percentage of CO2 reductions (what we would have done anyway, plus a little on top of that). It seems China is approaching it the same way.

[Prometheuspan]

16. never mind the nuclear or hydroelectric

"build nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric. more than we need in anticipation for future growth in demand / electric cars."

also, you missed geothermal, which is like hydro electric except that you don't destroy entire ecologies doing it.


since geothermal is cheaper than nuclear and not as deadly as hydro electric, and can meet all of our needs, and isn't toxic, and doesn't require miners to die... lets just scrap the nuclear and go with the geothermal.

-------------


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renewable_energy_topics_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Sustainable_development

http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html

http://www.geo-energy.org/

http://egs.egi.utah.edu/

http://geocen.iyte.edu.tr/english/indexEnglish.htm

http://terresacree.org/geothermieprofondeanglais.htm

http://www.newsunfiltered.com/archives/2005/09/expanding_geoth.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn11010-us-urged-to-boost-its-geothermal-power-capacity.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php
all geothermal power options are not equal. Dry rock for instance is a lot more hazardous.
The ideal would simply create a closed circuit with a pooling area at the bottom, and this would not cause
problems like this place did because the water would not be going out into the surrounding rock.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/geothermal-energy-and-its-advantages.html

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/17819/Geothermal-Power-Generation-The-sleeping-giant

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/PlusSide/geothermal.html

http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/geothermal.htm

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/03-the-great-forgotten-clean-energy-source

http://www.planetpuna.com/geothermal/geothermal%20critique.htm
this is just to be fair. It should be noted that this is all about one plant thats operating too close to the magma
and not using double closed circuit.

http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/geothermal-power-station.html

[kestrel91316]

2. Buy local. Use mass transit 90% of the time. Quit building McMansions.

[wtmusic]

3. The very same SciAm that taught us the science of UFOs?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=are-ufos-lighting-up-the-skies-over-2008-08-29


:rofl:

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. I'm sorry. Do you mean to imply that they wrote an affirmative piece?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=are-ufos-lighting-up-the-skies-over-2008-08-29

…

No abductions were reported, so it's safe to say that agents Mulder and Scully were not called in to investigate.

This alleged sighting, combined with a number of suspected UFO's in pictures snapped throughout Australia's Northern Territory, have outback denizens bracing for a possible influx of tourists: The area's unofficial UFO capital, Wycliffe Well, attracts "hundreds of visitors" each year hoping to catch a glimpse of a UFO zipping across the sky, according to a story today on the Northern Territory News Web site.

…

[wtmusic]

5. No, just that lately they're a pretty sorry excuse for science. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Seems fine to me

1. It was a blog piece.
2. It quite clearly was written in a skeptical voice, suggesting that reports of “UFO sightings” were good for promoting tourism.

   Move over Roswell. New Mexico's UFO Museum and Research Center may attract more than 150,000 visitors annually who are curious about the alleged 1947 alien crash landing there, but some residents of Australia's outback claim their skies are alive with unidentified flying object activity now.
   
   …

[joshcryer]

8. The same SciAm that taught us the science of sustainability.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf

[wtmusic]

9. Please don't trot out Mark Jacobson if you want to be taken seriously.

"The devil is in the details, and the details are where the renewable energy schemes come apart. This is the case for the Jacobson-Delucchi plan recently published in Scientific-American to set the world on a course to an all renewable energy scheme. But support for Mark Z. Jacobson's thinking about renewable energy has hardly been universal, and Jacobson has not responded to many criticisms of his work. in particular Bill Hannahan has offered significant criticisms of Mark. Z. Jacobson research on wind reliability, in the form of a paper offered to the Editor of the "Journal of Applied Meteorology & Climatology" (JAMC). Mark Z. Jacobson refused to cooperate with the review process for Hannahan's paper, and although the editor of the JAMC could have published Bill's paper even without Jacobson's cooperation, he refused to to so.

It should be noted that Jacobson, like many other renewable energy advocates regularly sidesteps and ignores criticisms. Thus legitimate questions exist about the value of Jacobson's scientific work, and Jacobson has failed to take reasonable steps to answer those criticisms. While Jacobson's work on wind reliability is repeatedly mentioned by renewable advocate, the mention of that work, in the absence of unanswered arguments that Jacobson's work is deeply flawed, suggest that the renewable power enterprise lacks critical standards for its knowledge claims. On Tuesday, I posted numerous informal criticisms of Jacobson's latest Scientific American Paper, that were left as comments on the Scientific American Web Page, in response to its announcement of the Jacobson-Delucchi paper. As of this morning 50 comments have been posted in response to the SA announcement. Many of these comments point to serious problems with the Jacobson-Delucchi plan."

Much more.

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/search?q=jacobson

[kristopher]

10. Criticism of Jacobson by the nuclear industry? What a surprise!!

Next thing you know we'll hear that the biofuels industry is also absolutely livid.

Oh, wait, they are.

They hate nothing more than to have the confusion and misinformation stripped away and the true nature of their technologies evaluated objectively because that is a sure route to having their snouts yanked out of the trough of public money they've been gorging on for decades.

[Prometheuspan]

14. biofuels are not green

biofuels are not renewable and they are not green, they hit the ecosystem twice, once being grown.

[joshcryer]

11. Any more info on the transmission line logistics that that commentor made on that blog posting?

[kristopher]

12. You mean "at the screed against renewables at the nuclear industry blog posting?"

How nice of you to try and get people to read that obviously made up tripe consisting wholly of fossil industry talking points.

[Prometheuspan]

13. water into upper atmosphere

"With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise, strong efforts will be required to reverse global warming"


all the methods come down to flushing out the upper atmosphere with water.

then there are the different ways to do that at mega scales.

[joshcryer]

15. I ask for fucking information about transmission lines (which you admit are lacking) and you go off?

You need to take a fucking break.

[kristopher]

17. WHY in the FUCK would you "ask for information" about renewable energy

From a blog dedicated to TRASHING renewable energy with obvious REPUBLICAN ENERGY POLICY talking points?

Except, of course, to get people to go there.

[joshcryer]

18. I am asking for information about transmission line logistics. If you have that information...

...I'd be interested in it. Otherwise shut the fuck up with your baseless claims and insanity.

[kristopher]

20. That's a real bad habit you have...

Telling people to "shut the fuck up".

And it doesn't help to make sense of you trying to get people to go to a propaganda outlet maintained by a "communications and media" expert for the dissemination of Republican Energy Policy talking points. Is Google broken? Did you suddenly lose your ability to discern obvious propaganda?

[joshcryer]

22. How am I "getting people to go there"? By asking for information?

By slandering me you are trying to shut me up, that's why you bury my posts with your spam. So I figure you could do me a favor and do the same, since what you're claiming makes no sense whatsoev.

[joshcryer]

19. In fact, if I thought the blog had real info, why would I fucking ask for it?

I read it again and it's just some claim. I go out of my fucking way to ask for *more information* and I get flamed for it? Fucking bullshit dude.

[kristopher]

21. Riiight.

[joshcryer]

23. I want more information, therefore the link doesn't provide enough.

Simple.

[joshcryer]

24. Does anyone have information about transmission line logistics?

[Dead_Parrot]

25. This might help:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-1471e.pdf

And a couple of newspaper articles, can't speak for the accuracy:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2008-02-25-wind-power-transmission_N.htm
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2002/11/11/daily5.html
http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/mar/01/transmission-lines-needed-firms-say/

[kristopher]

26. From the references for the pdf

Two (important) papers are listed and are recommended:
Cavallo, A. 2007. Controllable and affordable utility-scale electricity from intermittent wind
resources and compressed air energy storage (CAES). Energy 32, no. 2 (February): 120-
127.

DeCarolis, J. F., and D. W. Keith. 2006. The economics of large-scale wind power in a carbon
constrained world. Energy Policy 34, no. 4 (March): 395-410.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. That's an interesting response

From the article:

Broadly, there are two ways to estimate the cost of transmission for wind power: top-down and
bottom-up. A top-down approach is used in high-level studies like those that rely on the Energy
Information Administration’s (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) and those that
use the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Wind Deployment System (WinDS)
model. Conceptual analyses are also sometimes included in more-academic studies of the
feasibility of long-distance transmission for wind (see, e.g., Cavallo 2007; DeCarolis and Keith
2006; and Greenblatt et al. 2007). Though there are numerous advantages to these approaches,
they do not incorporate detailed physical modeling of the transmission system, and therefore
generate only coarse approximations for the transmission costs associated with increased wind
power development. Alternatively, bottom-up transmission studies often include detailed
physical modeling of the grid, and therefore will arguably produce more accurate estimates of
the cost of transmission expansion if conducted appropriately. Recently, a number of bottom up
transmission studies, ranging from very detailed to more conceptual, have included large
amounts of new wind development. In comparison to a top-down model, these bottom-up
studies examine specific transmission line paths and facility ratings. Detailed physical modeling
of the transmission system, in the bottom-up studies that use it, also allows complex relationships
between load, generation dispatch, power flows over parallel transmission paths, and reliability
requirements to be incorporated into the analysis of transmission expansion requirements and
costs.

In this report, we review a sample of 40 bottom-up transmission studies that have included wind
power. These studies cover a broad geographic area, and were completed from 2001-2008. Our
primary goal in reviewing these studies is to develop a better understanding of the transmission
costs needed to access growing quantities of wind generation (we do not address the institutional
barriers to transmission investment). In so doing, we present information that allows a deeper
appreciation of the nature and magnitude of the transmission cost barrier for wind energy.

Interesting for two reasons. Firstly, if you are aware of the details of these studies, I have to wonder why you didn't just point josh to them when he asked the question.

The second is that you've called the Cavallo & DeCarolis papers "important" and "recommended", when this article specifically describes them as "coarse approximations".

[kristopher]

29. First:

I don't believe he was actually asking for information; so I was addressing what I believe to be the true message in his communication.

Second; I'm familiar with Cavallo and DeCarolis because I'm from the "more-academic" side of the picture.

The DOE paper is a good one and it presents an excellent meta-analysis of the available data. What it lacks is outlined clearly in the conclusion and readers should heed those limits as more than boilerplate warnings - I've underlined the section. The academic side of the picture is (to use their expression) "arguably" more informative at this point than what can be produced by their "bottom up" approach. As more concrete data develops and as policy options clarify and shape the business environment, studies of this nature will become much more predictive of what can be expected both in costs and need.
Since the paper you offered covers that aspect well, recommending the "rest of the story" seemed appropriate.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that Cavallo is the "father" of advocating for the idea that it would be cost effective to provide "baseload" power from large scale wind transmitted over long distances. At the time, the "less academic" community was absolutely sure that 1) more than 5% penetration by wind would be death to the reliability of the grid (those voices are now totally silent). And 2) such transmission would be death to the economics of wind at any scale.
You can see from the conclusion whose analysis carried the day.

Conclusions
Recent growth in wind power development in the United States has been coupled with a growing concern that this development will require substantial additions to the nation’s transmission infrastructure. It is clear that institutional issues related to transmission planning, siting, and cost allocation will pose major obstacles to accelerated wind power deployment, but also of concern is the potential cost of this transmission infrastructure build out.

In this report, we have reviewed a sample of 40 regional transmission studies that have included wind power. These studies vary considerably in scope, authorship, objectives, and methodology, making comparisons difficult.

Regardless, our analysis of these studies reveals considerable differences in the implied unit cost of transmission for wind. In particular, the total range in unit transmission costs for wind implicit in these studies is from $0/kW to over $1,500/kW, though some of this range is surely the result of flaws in our methodological approach.

The majority of studies in our sample, however, have a unit cost of transmission that is below $500/kW, or roughly 25% of the current $2,000/kW capital cost of building a wind project. The median cost of transmission across all scenarios in our sample is $300/kW, on a capacity-weighted basis; roughly 15% of the current cost of building a wind project or 23% of the cost of building a wind project in the early 2000s. In terms of cost per megawatt-hour of wind power generation, the median cost is $15/MWh on a capacity-weighted basis, and most studies fall below $25/MWh.

Two highly-conceptual, top-down studies of 20% wind power penetration in the U.S. electricity system have implied unit costs of transmission below or nearly equivalent to the median cost of our sample of 40 bottom up transmission planning studies.

These mid-range costs, though not insignificant, are also not overwhelming. Additionally, the limitations of our methodology likely err towards an over-statement of the unit cost of transmission for wind.

The need for transmission expansion, for example, is not unique to wind: other generation sources will also require transmission expenditures. Transmission expansion also typically serves multiple purposes, and our approach to assigning the full costs of that expansion to generation capacity additions effectively ignores those other benefits.

And, in at least some of the studies in our sample, transmission is oversized, leading to an over-estimate of the transmission costs uniquely associated with wind additions.

Finally, in taking a deliverability (rather than congestion) focus, a number of the studies in our sample reflect existing contractual limits that, if overcome, could increase the efficiency of grid operations and lower the unit cost of transmission for wind; further work on this specific issue is merited.

Because the range of transmission costs surveyed here is broad, however, with a number of high-cost scenarios, it is also important to understand how differences in study objectives, methodologies, and assumptions can impact the resulting cost estimates.

Our work has only begun that process, and far more comparative work is needed.

Transmission costs do appear to be high in cases where long transmission lines are added without accessing substantial amounts of new generation. At the same time, we find little evidence that higher levels of wind penetration require dramatically increased unit transmission costs, relative to more-moderate levels of wind deployment.

This seems to be confirmed by two top down scenarios of 20% wind energy in the U.S., the JCSP study of 20% wind energy in the Eastern Interconnection, and by a number of bottom up study scenarios that add greater than 10 GW of new generation. It therefore appears that the unit cost of transmission for wind need not increase dramatically at higher levels of wind penetration.

[joshcryer]

30. First:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218781&mesg_id=219426

Your judgment is impaired, fortunately I don't have to rely on anything substantiative to come from you, so it's OK. I live with your insanity.

Second, I prefer to look at studies with projects that are actually being built rather than concepts that are abstract and not necessarily representative of reality. This is precisely why I am skeptical about AP1000, because claims must be supported by reality before I can trust them as future indicators.

As I say, we'll see.

[kristopher]

32. I'm sorry, but that reply was for DP.

I wrote:
I don't believe he was actually asking for information; so I was addressing what I believe to be the true message in his communication.

Second; I'm familiar with Cavallo and DeCarolis because I'm from the "more-academic" side of the picture.

The DOE paper is a good one and it presents an excellent meta-analysis of the available data. What it lacks is outlined clearly in the conclusion and readers should heed those limits as more than boilerplate warnings - I've underlined the section. The academic side of the picture is (to use their expression) "arguably" more informative at this point than what can be produced by their "bottom up" approach. As more concrete data develops and as policy options clarify and shape the business environment, studies of this nature will become much more predictive of what can be expected both in costs and need.
Since the paper you offered covers that aspect well, recommending the "rest of the story" seemed appropriate.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that Cavallo is the "father" of advocating for the idea that it would be cost effective to provide "baseload" power from large scale wind transmitted over long distances. At the time, the "less academic" community was absolutely sure that 1) more than 5% penetration by wind would be death to the reliability of the grid (those voices are now totally silent). And 2) such transmission would be death to the economics of wind at any scale.
You can see from the conclusion whose analysis carried the day.

Conclusions
Recent growth in wind power development in the United States has been coupled with a growing concern that this development will require substantial additions to the nation’s transmission infrastructure. It is clear that institutional issues related to transmission planning, siting, and cost allocation will pose major obstacles to accelerated wind power deployment, but also of concern is the potential cost of this transmission infrastructure build out.

In this report, we have reviewed a sample of 40 regional transmission studies that have included wind power. These studies vary considerably in scope, authorship, objectives, and methodology, making comparisons difficult.

Regardless, our analysis of these studies reveals considerable differences in the implied unit cost of transmission for wind. In particular, the total range in unit transmission costs for wind implicit in these studies is from $0/kW to over $1,500/kW, though some of this range is surely the result of flaws in our methodological approach.

The majority of studies in our sample, however, have a unit cost of transmission that is below $500/kW, or roughly 25% of the current $2,000/kW capital cost of building a wind project. The median cost of transmission across all scenarios in our sample is $300/kW, on a capacity-weighted basis; roughly 15% of the current cost of building a wind project or 23% of the cost of building a wind project in the early 2000s. In terms of cost per megawatt-hour of wind power generation, the median cost is $15/MWh on a capacity-weighted basis, and most studies fall below $25/MWh.

Two highly-conceptual, top-down studies of 20% wind power penetration in the U.S. electricity system have implied unit costs of transmission below or nearly equivalent to the median cost of our sample of 40 bottom up transmission planning studies.

These mid-range costs, though not insignificant, are also not overwhelming. Additionally, the limitations of our methodology likely err towards an over-statement of the unit cost of transmission for wind.

The need for transmission expansion, for example, is not unique to wind: other generation sources will also require transmission expenditures. Transmission expansion also typically serves multiple purposes, and our approach to assigning the full costs of that expansion to generation capacity additions effectively ignores those other benefits.

And, in at least some of the studies in our sample, transmission is oversized, leading to an over-estimate of the transmission costs uniquely associated with wind additions.

Finally, in taking a deliverability (rather than congestion) focus, a number of the studies in our sample reflect existing contractual limits that, if overcome, could increase the efficiency of grid operations and lower the unit cost of transmission for wind; further work on this specific issue is merited.

Because the range of transmission costs surveyed here is broad, however, with a number of high-cost scenarios, it is also important to understand how differences in study objectives, methodologies, and assumptions can impact the resulting cost estimates.

Our work has only begun that process, and far more comparative work is needed.

Transmission costs do appear to be high in cases where long transmission lines are added without accessing substantial amounts of new generation. At the same time, we find little evidence that higher levels of wind penetration require dramatically increased unit transmission costs, relative to more-moderate levels of wind deployment.

This seems to be confirmed by two top down scenarios of 20% wind energy in the U.S., the JCSP study of 20% wind energy in the Eastern Interconnection, and by a number of bottom up study scenarios that add greater than 10 GW of new generation. It therefore appears that the unit cost of transmission for wind need not increase dramatically at higher levels of wind penetration.

[joshcryer]

33. I'm sure he'll see your reply.

Feel free to post it for a third time.

[kristopher]

34. OK let's see,

You have repeatedly denied that your statements are only to be taken as the literal meaning of your words and derided me as "insane" for doing what humans do every day and reading the context and sender along with the words to obtain oblique and inferential meanings that you intend.

Does that mean you really want me to post it again, or were you just "joshing" us once more?

[joshcryer]

35. No, I am actually shocked that you didn't post it again.

Seriously, I fully expected you to post it again, I wasn't even going to reply, because I can see how you are so paranoid about bottom posting that it makes you think comments are somehow buried, resulting in you wanting it to be seen or something.

edit: and just so we're clear here, when you "read in to what I am saying" you always pick a negative interpretation, by saying that I needed more information on that blog posting, for instance, it should have been apparent to you, given that I have been on DU for many years, and have a post history under my real fucking name, which is completely searchable; it should be obvious to you that I was taking the commentators claims with a grain of fucking salt, and needed more information. Instead of that interpretation, your "universal pragmatics" seemed to chose the completely wrong answer to what was being implied.

[Dead_Parrot]

36. Well, recommending work you are familliar with is reasonable

...so fair enough. Your ability to divine the "true message" in a straightforward sentence, on the other hand, remains a source of both bewilderment and amusement.

[kristopher]

37. It should be neither.

Standard example:

A teacher walks into a classroom. During the lecture teacher wipes sweat from face and neck twice. The third time, the teacher looks at student nearest the window and, while wiping face states, "it certainly is hot in here" looking from the student nearest the window to the window.

The student rises and opens the window.

A very large portion of communication is contextual, and that extends to writing. If you hear that Senator Inhofe, a person obligated by law to maintain high ethical standards, writes something on energy, do you interpret it as a stand alone statement, or do you apply the contextual input of his stance on global warming as an aid to establishing an underlying meaning in his words?

This isn't rocket science.

[Dead_Parrot]

38. If you were that student...

...you'd probably conclude that the teacher didn't like your haircut, and spend the next 5 minutes advocating the use of cationic polymers in hair gel while the teacher backed nervously towards the door.

[Nederland]

39. LOL

THAT was funny.

[kristopher]

40. Yes, that's funny...

In the same way any other pathetic, deer-caught-caught-in-the-headlights instance of mental paralysis is funny.

Your position is so weak as to be nonexistent so you resort to attempts at diversion and personal attack.

It isn't complicated. In this case we have a settled goal - meeting our energy security and climate change needs while striving for the lowest environmental impact consistent with rapid deployment of a new energy infrastructure.

When you persist in asserting your arguments after your beliefs regarding how that can be accomplished are objectively shown to be false;
and when your position is that of the opposition political party or serves the commercial interests of those blocking action;
then your motives for posting are suspect and must be viewed in the context of the known *widescale and massively funded use of disinformation* by the interests attempting to block Democratic action.

[Dead_Parrot]

41. Yeah, and my mother dresses me funny. nt

[joshcryer]

42. It's funny only because it is completely true. You take things way out of context all the time.

Examples include Terry in Austin (who you got incredulous with for no reason whatsoever), and me on several distinct occasions (reading in to my The Age of Stupid comments, and reading in to my request for transmission line logistics). You make things personal on these forums, and you seem to lack the faculties for shame when you are shown to be wrong. Basically you are a sociopath.

[kristopher]

43. That is certainly the meme you are pushing.

I don't believe the facts support your rather self-serving assertion, however.

[joshcryer]

46. Like I said, sociopath.

[GliderGuider]

44. What it is.

[Dead_Parrot]

45. Ohh, look...

...a manual device for the collection and relocation of regolithic particles over macroscopic scales.

Cool.

[GliderGuider]

47. You owe me a keyboard.

:-)

[joshcryer]

28. Thanks a whole lot Dead_Parrot.

You rock. :hi:

[joshcryer]

31. Read the whole paper, it's quite good.

I am keeping it saved in my "energy" folder. I reckon I will spend the next few days acquiring the studies in it.

We're fucked, btw.