Energy Storage Dilemma? Not really, we just don't need it YET.

[kristopher]

First we need to build deploy more renewable generation. When the is time right solutions like this will be ready to maximize the use of energy collected from renewable generation.

Solving the Energy Storage Dilemma with Salt Caverns
Feb 17, 2010 Bookmark and Share


Compressed air energy storage (CAES) doesn't get much press, but as EPRI noted a while back, it's one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity. And, since it's underground there shouldn't be much of the NIMBY mentality to contend with. Here's one company that's taking a common sense approach to make it happen.
The vexing part of bringing renewable energy sources like wind and solar into the Smart Grid is that they're intermittent sources of power — you can't count on them to be there when you need them. But a Utah company is working toward a multi-purpose underground complex to store that energy in the form of compressed air and other energy sources.
Magnum Energy LLC, a Salt Lake City-based gas storage company, is developing a 2,050-acre site in the desert north of Delta, Utah. The plan is to use solution mining to build four caverns in a massive salt deposit about a mile underground. The caverns will have capacities of about 10 million barrels of natural gas or an equivalent.
It plans to begin the dissolving process in the first cavern sometime within the next year. So far, the only commercial sized compressed air plants are in Alabama and Germany, with more being developed in Iowa and Ohio. The complex, part of the Western Energy Hub Concept...

http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Technologies_Storage_News/Solving-the-Energy-Storage-Dilemma-with-Salt-Caverns-1892.html

[Kolesar]

1. Compressed air was the electricity storage advocated in Scientific American a few years ago

They also recommended building many more power lines to move solar power from the less populated western states.
See: "A Solar Grand Plan"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/search/index.cfm?q=compressed+air

[kristopher]

2. This is the one I'm sort of partial to...

The scalability, ability to put it anywhere, and unobtrusive nature just makes me think we'll be seeing a lot of these "rock batteries" in the future. I'd love to put one under my home.

http://isentropic.co.uk/index.php?page=storage

[Kolesar]

3. "Rock battery" in use

But seriously, folks, this is intriguing

Isentropic's machine is a reciprocating device but quite unlike existing machinery. It is based on four significant innovations:

•Machine layout - the machine re-imagines the first Ericsson cycle of 1833
•Construction - aircraft techniques have massively reduced piston weight and cost
•Valving - a completely new approach has virtually eliminated pressure losses
•Sealing - a new sealing concept gives ultra-low friction and very long life

[kristopher]

7. Cute. But wouldn't that be chemical and/or flywheel storage?

Seriously, thanks for the update. I just got a blurb in my email from Greentech on them:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breakthrough-in-utility-scale-energy-storage-isentropic

Aside from a nice chart with costs for different storage options, it has this hopeful forecast on price:
"Jonathan Howes, the Chief Technical Officer of U.K. start-up Isentropic Energy, ...is claiming large-scale storage costs that are an order of magnitude lower than Lithium-ion batteries or other stored energy technologies -- $55 per kilowatt-hour currently, with a path to get down to $8 per kilowatt-hour.

Isentropic's technology is compact, has no geographical constraints and claims a round-trip efficiency of 72 to 80 percent.

*IF* they can get to 8/kwh that is going to have a huge impact on renewable rollout and carbon reductions.

Given the unremarkable nature of the components of the system, I'd like to know what the specific obstacles to price reduction are. If it is just lack of dedicated manufacturing I'd like to know that, and if it is related to some technological hurdle I'd like to know that also.

[FBaggins]

4. The problem with that is MANY types of storage

are integrated by design with the generator. So you lose potential benefits by developing generation without at least planning for future storage.

It's also true that the only reason we "don't need it yet" is because wind/solar does not provide any real base generation capacity now. You can't GET to the point where they replace significant fossil generation until you have effective storage. It isn't the other way around (that you can hold off on storage until it provides a baseline capacity).

[kristopher]

5. The problem with *that* response is the nature of the grid current and future.

"Storage integrated by design with generation" - Sorry, no.
"Lose potential benefits by developing generation without at least planning for future storage." - Sorry, no.

"reason we "don't need it yet" is because wind/solar does not provide any real base generation capacity now." - True, but...
"can't GET to the point where they replace significant fossil generation until you have effective storage" - True, but...

If your premises are weak, then your conclusion is also. While you posit two true facts, you have omitted other information that invalidates the direction these two factoids send your logic, so even the 50% you did state correctly is actually of no help since it is inserted into a false paradigm.

The part you are missing is that fossil fuels are stored energy. So when we talk of energy storage as part of moving away from fossil fuels, the first stop in the discussion is to look at the present stored energy system that we've already paid for and see how that will perform during the period of transition.

The most polluting technology is coal - both in amount of CO2 and particulates per delivered kilowatt. The second most polluting technology is petroleum for transportation. If we can restructure the way we use energy to meet the needs associated with these two stored energy systems, we will be most of the way to meeting our climate change and energy security goals.

Fortunately there is one more element of the existing stored energy grid: already-bought-and-paid-for natural gas generation for peaking comprises a very large percentage of our existing fleet and they ARE BARELY USED.

Replacing coal 1:1 with natural gas combined cycle would result in a 60% decrease in carbon emissions for the same amount of electricity.

By targeting coal (which cap and trade does) and
-using renewables to their maximum then
-filling in the gaps with the existing natural gas capacity
-we raise that 60% reduction probably to a level in excess of 80%.

We therefore achieve the largest CO2 reductions in the shortest time for the least cost by folloing a path where focus on *deploying* storage is deferred.

Now, for a renewable grid to be absolutely the most efficient it can be, we *will* add a new component to our energy delivery system in the form of storage that both delivers power on demand but also captures energy from renewable generating systems that is produced in excess of demand (spilled energy).

The market niche for this application in the present system is small, as demonstrated by the paucity of businesses that use existing proven storage technologies like CAES and pumped hydro.

As the carbon price ratchets up we will see the both an increase in demand for storage and the cost of natural gas stored energy increase. This will result in the alternatives like biofuels to power those natgas plants, CAES, pumped hydro and rock batteries becoming more attractive.

There is also the extremely large reserve of grid storage that an EV fleet brings to the table as a "free" side benefit of electrifying our personal transportation fleet - it is huge.

This isn't a comprehensive explanation, but it covers the basic process that is underway. I hope it helps.

[FBaggins]

6. "If your premises are weak, then your conclusion is also."

I could just set that as my auto-reply to almost all of your posts Kris. But congratulations... none of that looks pasted from someone else's thoughts... so it's at least worth a full reply.

The part you are missing is that fossil fuels are stored energy.

So? They are "stored" from millions of years of sunlight... in present terms, however, they are sources of energy.

If we can restructure the way we use energy

This sounds painfully like "we just need to learn to live without 24/7 availability of electricity" - which is a non-starter.

Replacing coal 1:1 with natural gas combined cycle would result in a 60% decrease in carbon emissions for the same amount of electricity.

This is true... but that doesn't move us away from fossil fuels, it just shifts which one. More importantly, it is an unexpected admission of your errors over hundreds of posts I've seen from you. You're really saying we don't need to worry about storage of wind/solar because we are not going to rely on either one to provide 24/7 power. We will use it when available for free/clean energy and then back up the grid with more reliable sources. This means that you need to have fossil generation capability (because you've rejected nuclear) that comes very close to your total power needs... you just have it turned off when it isn't needed. But you still need to build the plant... build the infrastructure... staff the plant etc AND build out the greener sources.



Now, for a renewable grid to

Whoa there horsey... all you've done up to the word "now" is replace one fossil fuel with another. A change that I'm entirely in favor of (along with nuclear). It's clear that the peak oil crowd was flat wrong about natural gas peaking a decade or so ago, so we certainly can increase our nat-gas energy production significantly... but that has nothing to do with a renewable grid. (see comments above).


The market niche for this application in the present system is small

That's incorrect. In fact, utility acceptance of a higher proportion from renewable requires some for of storage. This goes back to two paragraphs up... renewables can only provide replacement power to the extent that reliable power is available for when they cannot produce. It's precisely because we have excess capacity in reliable power that greener sources can make sense... but there is a limit to how far they can go.

as demonstrated by the paucity of businesses that use existing proven storage technologies like CAES and pumped hydro

Nope. I can see how you might think that, but the reason they aren't used regularly is because 1) there is no need for them and 2) they are not cost-effective.

Now... before you make the obvious response to #2... the reason they aren't cost effective is only partially because they add expense. It's mostly because there isn't a NEED to store BECAUSE the grid has excess capacity. When the sun is shining you don't need to charge batteries (normal or in other forms), you can just idle a natgas plant down the road and save on fuel costs. IOW... you can use all that it produces (in most cases).

If wind/solar/tidal (hydro/wave are different) are going to increase beyond surplus generation (with the main benefit being reduction of fossil uses when it is available - rather than replacement) and get to a point where you can actually replace existing fossil generation (rather than supplement in a cleaner way), storage is essential.

And you can't build generation capacity now and expect to PLAN to replace the alternatives in the future until you can demonstrate that this is feasible.

[kristopher]

8. Why do I bother...

I am completely consistent in my claims, the answer to the claim that nuclear is needed to replace coal for "baseload" is to be found in the GRID. I mean, I even pointed it out in my header line, as you can see below. You are continuing your same disinformation campaign to promote nuclear in spite of evidence it is poor choice for our needs. I'm just going to let our two posts speak for themselves:

I wrote:

The problem with *that* response is the nature of the grid current and future.

"Storage integrated by design with generation" - Sorry, no.
"Lose potential benefits by developing generation without at least planning for future storage." - Sorry, no.

"reason we "don't need it yet" is because wind/solar does not provide any real base generation capacity now." - True, but...
"can't GET to the point where they replace significant fossil generation until you have effective storage" - True, but...

If your premises are weak, then your conclusion is also. While you posit two true facts, you have omitted other information that invalidates the direction these two factoids send your logic, so even the 50% you did state correctly is actually of no help since it is inserted into a false paradigm.

The part you are missing is that fossil fuels are stored energy. So when we talk of energy storage as part of moving away from fossil fuels, the first stop in the discussion is to look at the present stored energy system that we've already paid for and see how that will perform during the period of transition.

The most polluting technology is coal - both in amount of CO2 and particulates per delivered kilowatt. The second most polluting technology is petroleum for transportation. If we can restructure the way we use energy to meet the needs associated with these two stored energy systems, we will be most of the way to meeting our climate change and energy security goals.

Fortunately there is one more element of the existing stored energy grid: already-bought-and-paid-for natural gas generation for peaking comprises a very large percentage of our existing fleet and they ARE BARELY USED.

Replacing coal 1:1 with natural gas combined cycle would result in a 60% decrease in carbon emissions for the same amount of electricity.

By targeting coal (which cap and trade does) and
-using renewables to their maximum then
-filling in the gaps with the existing natural gas capacity
-we raise that 60% reduction probably to a level in excess of 80%.

We therefore achieve the largest CO2 reductions in the shortest time for the least cost by folloing a path where focus on *deploying* storage is deferred.

Now, for a renewable grid to be absolutely the most efficient it can be, we *will* add a new component to our energy delivery system in the form of storage that both delivers power on demand but also captures energy from renewable generating systems that is produced in excess of demand (spilled energy).

The market niche for this application in the present system is small, as demonstrated by the paucity of businesses that use existing proven storage technologies like CAES and pumped hydro.

As the carbon price ratchets up we will see the both an increase in demand for storage and the cost of natural gas stored energy increase. This will result in the alternatives like biofuels to power those natgas plants, CAES, pumped hydro and rock batteries becoming more attractive.

There is also the extremely large reserve of grid storage that an EV fleet brings to the table as a "free" side benefit of electrifying our personal transportation fleet - it is huge.

This isn't a comprehensive explanation, but it covers the basic process that is underway. I hope it helps.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=232368&mesg_id=232508

Your reply:

I could just set that as my auto-reply to almost all of your posts Kris. But congratulations... none of that looks pasted from someone else's thoughts... so it's at least worth a full reply.

The part you are missing is that fossil fuels are stored energy.

So? They are "stored" from millions of years of sunlight... in present terms, however, they are sources of energy.

If we can restructure the way we use energy

This sounds painfully like "we just need to learn to live without 24/7 availability of electricity" - which is a non-starter.

Replacing coal 1:1 with natural gas combined cycle would result in a 60% decrease in carbon emissions for the same amount of electricity.

This is true... but that doesn't move us away from fossil fuels, it just shifts which one. More importantly, it is an unexpected admission of your errors over hundreds of posts I've seen from you. You're really saying we don't need to worry about storage of wind/solar because we are not going to rely on either one to provide 24/7 power. We will use it when available for free/clean energy and then back up the grid with more reliable sources. This means that you need to have fossil generation capability (because you've rejected nuclear) that comes very close to your total power needs... you just have it turned off when it isn't needed. But you still need to build the plant... build the infrastructure... staff the plant etc AND build out the greener sources.



Now, for a renewable grid to

Whoa there horsey... all you've done up to the word "now" is replace one fossil fuel with another. A change that I'm entirely in favor of (along with nuclear). It's clear that the peak oil crowd was flat wrong about natural gas peaking a decade or so ago, so we certainly can increase our nat-gas energy production significantly... but that has nothing to do with a renewable grid. (see comments above).


The market niche for this application in the present system is small

That's incorrect. In fact, utility acceptance of a higher proportion from renewable requires some for of storage. This goes back to two paragraphs up... renewables can only provide replacement power to the extent that reliable power is available for when they cannot produce. It's precisely because we have excess capacity in reliable power that greener sources can make sense... but there is a limit to how far they can go.

as demonstrated by the paucity of businesses that use existing proven storage technologies like CAES and pumped hydro

Nope. I can see how you might think that, but the reason they aren't used regularly is because 1) there is no need for them and 2) they are not cost-effective.

Now... before you make the obvious response to #2... the reason they aren't cost effective is only partially because they add expense. It's mostly because there isn't a NEED to store BECAUSE the grid has excess capacity. When the sun is shining you don't need to charge batteries (normal or in other forms), you can just idle a natgas plant down the road and save on fuel costs. IOW... you can use all that it produces (in most cases).

If wind/solar/tidal (hydro/wave are different) are going to increase beyond surplus generation (with the main benefit being reduction of fossil uses when it is available - rather than replacement) and get to a point where you can actually replace existing fossil generation (rather than supplement in a cleaner way), storage is essential.

And you can't build generation capacity now and expect to PLAN to replace the alternatives in the future until you can demonstrate that this is feasible.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=232368&mesg_id=232524

[FBaggins]

9. "I am completely consistent in my claims"

Oh please... you just moved from supporting a plan that would ramp us up to 100% renewables in 20 years (and claiming that you don't agree that your opposition to nuclear would result in more fossil generation) to one that doubles the number of natural gas plants before we work on storage for renewables.

Hint... that is not "consistent"


the answer to the claim that nuclear is needed to replace coal for "baseload" is to be found in the GRID.

Ah yes... the magical GRID that fixes everything. What you ignore is that the GRID only works NOW because someone somewhere ELSE is making power with a reliable source. Once EVERYONE is on renewables, there is no "someone somewhere else".


I'm just going to let our two posts speak for themselves

Which just means that you're right back to your inability to think for yourself. That's a shame.

[kristopher]

10. .

You are continuing your same disinformation campaign to promote nuclear in spite of evidence it is poor choice for our needs. I'm just going to let our two posts speak for themselves:

I wrote:

The problem with *that* response is the nature of the grid current and future.

"Storage integrated by design with generation" - Sorry, no.
"Lose potential benefits by developing generation without at least planning for future storage." - Sorry, no.

"reason we "don't need it yet" is because wind/solar does not provide any real base generation capacity now." - True, but...
"can't GET to the point where they replace significant fossil generation until you have effective storage" - True, but...

If your premises are weak, then your conclusion is also. While you posit two true facts, you have omitted other information that invalidates the direction these two factoids send your logic, so even the 50% you did state correctly is actually of no help since it is inserted into a false paradigm.

The part you are missing is that fossil fuels are stored energy. So when we talk of energy storage as part of moving away from fossil fuels, the first stop in the discussion is to look at the present stored energy system that we've already paid for and see how that will perform during the period of transition.

The most polluting technology is coal - both in amount of CO2 and particulates per delivered kilowatt. The second most polluting technology is petroleum for transportation. If we can restructure the way we use energy to meet the needs associated with these two stored energy systems, we will be most of the way to meeting our climate change and energy security goals.

Fortunately there is one more element of the existing stored energy grid: already-bought-and-paid-for natural gas generation for peaking comprises a very large percentage of our existing fleet and they ARE BARELY USED.

Replacing coal 1:1 with natural gas combined cycle would result in a 60% decrease in carbon emissions for the same amount of electricity.

By targeting coal (which cap and trade does) and
-using renewables to their maximum then
-filling in the gaps with the existing natural gas capacity
-we raise that 60% reduction probably to a level in excess of 80%.

We therefore achieve the largest CO2 reductions in the shortest time for the least cost by folloing a path where focus on *deploying* storage is deferred.

Now, for a renewable grid to be absolutely the most efficient it can be, we *will* add a new component to our energy delivery system in the form of storage that both delivers power on demand but also captures energy from renewable generating systems that is produced in excess of demand (spilled energy).

The market niche for this application in the present system is small, as demonstrated by the paucity of businesses that use existing proven storage technologies like CAES and pumped hydro.

As the carbon price ratchets up we will see the both an increase in demand for storage and the cost of natural gas stored energy increase. This will result in the alternatives like biofuels to power those natgas plants, CAES, pumped hydro and rock batteries becoming more attractive.

There is also the extremely large reserve of grid storage that an EV fleet brings to the table as a "free" side benefit of electrifying our personal transportation fleet - it is huge.

This isn't a comprehensive explanation, but it covers the basic process that is underway. I hope it helps.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=232368&mesg_id=232508

Your reply:

I could just set that as my auto-reply to almost all of your posts Kris. But congratulations... none of that looks pasted from someone else's thoughts... so it's at least worth a full reply.

The part you are missing is that fossil fuels are stored energy.

So? They are "stored" from millions of years of sunlight... in present terms, however, they are sources of energy.

If we can restructure the way we use energy

This sounds painfully like "we just need to learn to live without 24/7 availability of electricity" - which is a non-starter.

Replacing coal 1:1 with natural gas combined cycle would result in a 60% decrease in carbon emissions for the same amount of electricity.

This is true... but that doesn't move us away from fossil fuels, it just shifts which one. More importantly, it is an unexpected admission of your errors over hundreds of posts I've seen from you. You're really saying we don't need to worry about storage of wind/solar because we are not going to rely on either one to provide 24/7 power. We will use it when available for free/clean energy and then back up the grid with more reliable sources. This means that you need to have fossil generation capability (because you've rejected nuclear) that comes very close to your total power needs... you just have it turned off when it isn't needed. But you still need to build the plant... build the infrastructure... staff the plant etc AND build out the greener sources.



Now, for a renewable grid to

Whoa there horsey... all you've done up to the word "now" is replace one fossil fuel with another. A change that I'm entirely in favor of (along with nuclear). It's clear that the peak oil crowd was flat wrong about natural gas peaking a decade or so ago, so we certainly can increase our nat-gas energy production significantly... but that has nothing to do with a renewable grid. (see comments above).


The market niche for this application in the present system is small

That's incorrect. In fact, utility acceptance of a higher proportion from renewable requires some for of storage. This goes back to two paragraphs up... renewables can only provide replacement power to the extent that reliable power is available for when they cannot produce. It's precisely because we have excess capacity in reliable power that greener sources can make sense... but there is a limit to how far they can go.

as demonstrated by the paucity of businesses that use existing proven storage technologies like CAES and pumped hydro

Nope. I can see how you might think that, but the reason they aren't used regularly is because 1) there is no need for them and 2) they are not cost-effective.

Now... before you make the obvious response to #2... the reason they aren't cost effective is only partially because they add expense. It's mostly because there isn't a NEED to store BECAUSE the grid has excess capacity. When the sun is shining you don't need to charge batteries (normal or in other forms), you can just idle a natgas plant down the road and save on fuel costs. IOW... you can use all that it produces (in most cases).

If wind/solar/tidal (hydro/wave are different) are going to increase beyond surplus generation (with the main benefit being reduction of fossil uses when it is available - rather than replacement) and get to a point where you can actually replace existing fossil generation (rather than supplement in a cleaner way), storage is essential.

And you can't build generation capacity now and expect to PLAN to replace the alternatives in the future until you can demonstrate that this is feasible.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=232368&mesg_id=232524

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

12. From your Isentropic Energy thread

"Any big push to make wind and solar power account for more than a tiny fraction of the world’s energy supply will have to deal with the intermittency problem — the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, but the grid’s power demands follow predictable peaks that have to be met."

Once again... two of your fantasies contradict each other... yet you will blissfully go on believing both simultaneously. You and Alice's white queen would get along splendidly.

[kristopher]

13. Specifically what is your conclusion from that quote?

Where is there a contradiction - SPECIFICALLY?

[FBaggins]

14. Sorry... didn't realize that english wasn't your first language.

I presumed it was obvious.

"Don't need energy storage yet" and "any push to make" it more than a "tiny fraction" is a direct contradiction. One is "don't need it until after we move well beyond this point," and the other is "need it to even consider moving much beyond this point."

For the record... the second position is correct.

[kristopher]

15. So you have the magic ability to quantify generalized terms?

No you don't. Also, Isentropic is a company trying to justify their product. They are overstating the case for the rollout of their product - something I've warned about previously. Common wisdom 10 years ago was that the threshold for renewable penetration without storage was about 5% of generation. However we've more experience with high rates of penetration in Europe and we've learned that even at rates above 40% dedicated storage is not required since the existing infrastructure can adjust to the integration. That's because the system NOW IN USE DELIVERS FROM STORED ENERGY. What part of that is so hard for you to get? Our renewable capacity isn't maximized, but that comes later.

As we increase the amount of renewables beyond that 40% or so amount the need for storage (that's the role natural gas is still playing) will actually start to decline. The existing natural gas infrastructure will have some age on it, and after coal is gone, as the natgas capacity begins to decline it will be replaced with the most economic noncarbon alternative that works for the specific shortfall being encountered.

That may be a geothermal plant; or it may be a wave generator; or it may be a storage system that captures spilled energy from renewable sources.

Your personal attack, once again, has no merit; but the underlying question was legitimate.

[FBaggins]

16. "Don't" and "any" are not exactly "generalized"

Isentropic is a company trying to justify their product. They are overstating the case for the rollout of their product - something I've warned about previously.

You NUCLEAR SHILL!!!!

Sorry... were you saying something? I was just channeling this guy I read yesterday who wouldn't listen to such comments. Strange that you two have such similar screen names. :)

Common wisdom 10 years ago was that the threshold for renewable penetration without storage was about 5% of generation. However we've more experience with high rates of penetration in Europe and we've learned that even at rates above 40% dedicated storage is not required

That's flat wrong. We have "learned" no such thing. The only time much higher percentages work is when one of two things occurs (or a combination):

1) Total capacity (including renewables) exceeds peak demand by almost the amount of the renewable capacity... so all you're doing is idling (not replacing) less-green generating capacity.

2) Neighboring countries buy excess power when the renewables are on line, but sell significant amounts of power back when they are not. IOW... just a larger version of #1 above. You see this with the greener utilities here and with the european countries you're likely thinking of. There is absolutely zero chance of the US approaching anything close to 40% nationally without retaining existing generating capacity or Canada/Mexico suddenly having a massive surplus that they will sell us any time we need it.

That's because the system NOW IN USE DELIVERS FROM STORED ENERGY. What part of that is so hard for you to get?

The part where it's anything but rhetorical slight-of-hand.

beyond that 40% or so amount the need for storage (that's the role natural gas is still playing)

And at what point in this process do the existing nuclear plants get shut down? You seem willing to rely heavily on them while still opposing them... quite "convenient."


I can see that you took the time to type multiple paragraphs. We both know that you can't do that without feeling the need to spam repost it half a dozen times before even trying to say anything new. So if you could just post five or six "." lines in a row and then let me know when you have anything new... I would appreciate it. think of all the energy we could save! Efficiency is much cheaper than new generating. :)

[kristopher]

17. This really said it all

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=232368&mesg_id=232537

[FBaggins]

18. Sorry... were you going to support your position at all?

Or just spam a previous post that was just spam itself?

Go ahead... cite those european countries that get close to 40% of their power from renewables.

I can wait.