If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Wind could potentially power the entire world, just like the way it's powering the presidential campaigns   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 42
    More: Interesting, wind powers, calderas, Carnegie Institution, environmental engineering, wind turbines, civil engineers, confidential information, National Academy of Sciences  
•       •       •

943 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Sep 2012 at 7:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-12 07:23:07 AM
Wind is a cycle that blows through the ocean
blowing turbines, giving watts to your electric cars
 
2012-09-12 07:53:51 AM
We have until 2015 to implement universal carbon limits in order to keep the temperature change within 2 degrees (the minimum needed to avoid disaster). . . Yet we prefer to rely on oil, coal, and natural gas.

It's The Age of Stupid
 
2012-09-12 08:14:09 AM

Bontesla: We have until 2015 to implement universal carbon limits in order to keep the temperature change within 2 degrees (the minimum needed to avoid disaster). . . Yet we prefer to rely on oil, coal, and natural gas.

It's The Age of Stupid


wait, hasn`t that already happened?


Global warming 'past the point of no return'

By Steve Connor , Science Editor

Friday 16 September 2005


Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor

Monday 16 January 2006
 

gottit, it didn`t happen 8 years ago, it`s GOING to happen in 3 years.
 
2012-09-12 08:15:49 AM
Mind you, the fact we can expand our energy usage 20 times just using ground based wind turbines is very good news.
 
2012-09-12 09:12:16 AM
I'm not advocating use of fossil fuels but has anybody considered the effect of large scale global energy extraction from air currents? There is no such thing as a free lunch and altering weather patterns might yield some surprising results.

I know that the are several orders of magnitude between our current energy usage and the amount of kinetic energy in the wind but if we could be reasonably sure of an indefinite resource at a reasonable price, our economies would begin expanding at huge rates and as such our power consumption would increase dramatically for many years.
 
2012-09-12 09:23:07 AM
obama: pro-wind
romney: anti-wind
 
2012-09-12 09:23:48 AM
*if only one million people lived on Earth
 
2012-09-12 09:26:13 AM
We could power the whole Earth from the USA for 30k years with very few harmful emissions by using geothermal power. It would be relatively cheap, too. But for some reason, we're still using mostly coal to generate electricity. Wonder why we're using a relatively expensive, dirty, non-renewable method instead of an easy, cheap, clean method...
 
2012-09-12 09:26:54 AM

FlashHarry: obama: pro-wind
romney: anti-wind


Both: full of wind
 
2012-09-12 09:42:06 AM

untaken_name: We could power the whole Earth from the USA for 30k years with very few harmful emissions by using geothermal power. It would be relatively cheap, too. But for some reason, we're still using mostly coal to generate electricity. Wonder why we're using a relatively expensive, dirty, non-renewable method instead of an easy, cheap, clean method...


Short answer: because change is scary.
 
2012-09-12 10:17:43 AM

untaken_name: We could power the whole Earth from the USA for 30k years with very few harmful emissions by using geothermal power. It would be relatively cheap, too. But for some reason, we're still using mostly coal to generate electricity. Wonder why we're using a relatively expensive, dirty, non-renewable method instead of an easy, cheap, clean method...


Current % of US power generated by geothermal:less than 0.5%, although it sounds like we might be on track to achieve nearly 1% by 2025.
Link

How long would it take to increase our geothermal plants by a factor of >200 to handle the current US load (let alone future growth)?

And, ignoring the fact that "power the whole Earth" is probably meant to be hyperbole, how are you planning to transmit this power to the other countries?

Troll: Sounds like you're in favor of nuclear energy. Why not just dig up some of the fissionable material and use it more efficiently, instead of leaving it in the ground and trying to indirectly tap it using a process that releases arsenic into the environment? /troll
 
2012-09-12 10:21:00 AM

Bontesla: We have until 2015 to implement universal carbon limits in order to keep the temperature change within 2 degrees (the minimum needed to avoid disaster). . . Yet we prefer to rely on oil, coal, and natural gas.



You say that with such certainty. Almost as if your basis for belief is faith and not reason.
 
2012-09-12 10:21:54 AM

untaken_name: FlashHarry: obama: pro-wind
romney: anti-wind

Both: full of wind


so vote republican?
 
2012-09-12 10:43:07 AM

Egoy3k: I'm not advocating use of fossil fuels but has anybody considered the effect of large scale global energy extraction from air currents? There is no such thing as a free lunch and altering weather patterns might yield some surprising results.


I keep hearing this anti-wind argument more and more . . .

Think of it like this: in areas like Europe and the Eastern USA, where we've cut down tens of *billions* of trees and almost all of the old growth forests, will installing ten-thousand wind turbines do anything to influence weather patterns?

Also, what affects the albedo of a continent more? The cooling of the atmosphere via energy extraction via tens of thousands of wind turbines, or the heating of the atmosphere via paving *millions* of miles of the continent and removal of natural plant life?
 
2012-09-12 10:48:38 AM

FlashHarry
:
obama: pro-wind pro-give aways to political cronies
romney: anti-wind anti-imaginary energy sources


FTFY
 
2012-09-12 10:53:11 AM

pdee: FlashHarry
: obama: pro-give aways to political cronies
romney: anti-imaginary energy sources

FTFY


Wind energy is imaginary???
 
2012-09-12 10:59:43 AM
WIKI:At high noon on a cloudless day at the equator, the power of the sun is about 1 kW/m²,[20]

WIKI:Surface area of the earth:510,072,000 km2

WIKI:Total world power usage of 15 terawatts (1.504×1013 W) 2008

510.072 terawatts if we cover the entire surface of the earth in photovoltics. 34 times as much energy as we used in 2008.

TFA study is just as useless as the above.
 
2012-09-12 11:00:58 AM

MrSteve007: Egoy3k: I'm not advocating use of fossil fuels but has anybody considered the effect of large scale global energy extraction from air currents? There is no such thing as a free lunch and altering weather patterns might yield some surprising results.

I keep hearing this anti-wind argument more and more . . .

Think of it like this: in areas like Europe and the Eastern USA, where we've cut down tens of *billions* of trees and almost all of the old growth forests, will installing ten-thousand wind turbines do anything to influence weather patterns?

Also, what affects the albedo of a continent more? The cooling of the atmosphere via energy extraction via tens of thousands of wind turbines, or the heating of the atmosphere via paving *millions* of miles of the continent and removal of natural plant life?


That wasn't intended as an anti wind farm argument and if you had read my whole post you would know that. If there was any point at all it was that we should diversify our energy production, keeping our eggs from being in one basket and diffusing the environmental impacts throughout the whole spectrum. Fossil fuels still have a role but it should be a sharply diminishing role.
 
2012-09-12 11:06:02 AM

MrSteve007: pdee: FlashHarry
: obama: pro-give aways to political cronies
romney: anti-imaginary energy sources

FTFY

Wind energy is imaginary???


In terms of producing usable power or reducing fossil fuel usage yea pretty much.
 
2012-09-12 11:07:20 AM
Wind is great except for...

1) It's horribly unreliable. Sometimes it blows and can generate huge amounts of power; other times you can't even fly a kit. This poses a problem because electricity has to be generated to match demand and cannot be stored efficiently. So if the weather is 105 outside at 5pm and there's no wind, expect blackouts.

2) Transmission of power is the number one problem (IMO). Our transmission infrastructure is decades old. With an increased population (thus increased demand) we need more lines, but no one wants to have transmission lines over their homes. And before you suggest burying cables, know that costs are significantly higher (10 times). So between this and the fact that there is usually significant distances between areas that are windy and large metropolitan areas, it's just not viable.

3) There are environmental impacts. It kills lots and lots of birds and bats.
 
2012-09-12 11:36:18 AM

simplethinking: Transmission of power is the number one problem


I understand you could power the entire world 10 times over off of Iceland's geothermal alone if it weren't for transmission/transportation issues.
 
2012-09-12 12:20:00 PM
If there was any way to store the energy, we could power the country by tapping thunderstorms.
 
2012-09-12 12:24:53 PM
b>pdee: In terms of producing usable power or reducing fossil fuel usage yea pretty much.

Wow, in what world do you live in? Because that isn't reality. I can start off with the macro (at least on a state level). Here in my State, here's our growth in wind energy capacity, through 2011:
upload.wikimedia.org
As of today, we're up to 2,800 MW of installed wind capacity. Last year, it generated 6,209 million kilowatt-hours. Because of this new generation, we're able to permanently shut-down our state's only coal plant - Link

So yeah, real wind power, directly reducing fossil fuel use.
 
2012-09-12 12:52:03 PM

FlashHarry: obama: pro-wind
romney: anti-wind


He's had years to prove that he is, including a time when there was a supermajority in both houses of Congress and the ability to write a blank check for nearly a trillion dollars of whatever he wanted. He had the opportunity to fundamentally alter our energy generation and dependency but chose not to.

That's not "pro-wind".
 
2012-09-12 01:19:00 PM

MrSteve007: b>pdee: In terms of producing usable power or reducing fossil fuel usage yea pretty much.

Wow, in what world do you live in? Because that isn't reality. I can start off with the macro (at least on a state level). Here in my State, here's our growth in wind energy capacity, through 2011:

As of today, we're up to 2,800 MW of installed wind capacity. Last year, it generated 6,209 million kilowatt-hours. Because of this new generation, we're able to permanently shut-down our state's only coal plant - Link

So yeah, real wind power, directly reducing fossil fuel use.


Since 1MW of capacity produces 24 million kWh's...that's less than POINT 1% of capacity if my math is right.

(2800MW times 24million) = total capacity in kWh

So, not very efficient...no.

/could have missed a few zeros
 
2012-09-12 01:26:27 PM

r8doman: MrSteve007: b>pdee: In terms of producing usable power or reducing fossil fuel usage yea pretty much.

Wow, in what world do you live in? Because that isn't reality. I can start off with the macro (at least on a state level). Here in my State, here's our growth in wind energy capacity, through 2011:

As of today, we're up to 2,800 MW of installed wind capacity. Last year, it generated 6,209 million kilowatt-hours. Because of this new generation, we're able to permanently shut-down our state's only coal plant - Link

So yeah, real wind power, directly reducing fossil fuel use.

Since 1MW of capacity produces 24 million kWh's...that's less than POINT 1% of capacity if my math is right.

(2800MW times 24million) = total capacity in kWh

So, not very efficient...no.

/could have missed a few zeros


Redid the math...forgot to carry the decimal point. It's less than 10% capacity...

Still not very efficient
 
2012-09-12 01:47:47 PM

r8doman: Redid the math...forgot to carry the decimal point. It's less than 10% capacity...

Still not very efficient


You need to readjust that math some. The 2,800 MW is for capacity being online at this moment, today. 6,209 million kWh is for total generation in 2011, when installed capacity was closer to ~2,200MW

If they ran 100% for the year, that would be 19,272 million kWh ((2200 megawatts * 24-hours = 52,800,000,000 watt-hours) times 365 days = 19,272,000,000,000 watt-hours. Converted to kWh, that is 19,272,000,000 kWh.

6,209 million kWh divided by 19,272 million kWh = 32% capacity factor.
 
2012-09-12 02:02:45 PM

meanmutton: He's had years to prove that he is, including a time when there was a supermajority in both houses of Congress and the ability to write a blank check for nearly a trillion dollars of whatever he wanted. He had the opportunity to fundamentally alter our energy generation and dependency but chose not to.

That's not "pro-wind".


You couldn't be more wrong.

From 2008 to today, electrical output:
-solar: up 285.19%
-wind: up 171.72%
-geothermal: up 13.53%

"According to the latest issue of the monthly "Energy Infrastructure Update" published by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Energy Projects with data for the first half of 2012, 229 renewable energy projects accounted for more than 38% of new electrical generation capacity (not to be confused with actual generation). This includes 50 wind energy projects (2,367 MW), 111 solar energy projects (588 MW), 59 biomass projects (271 MW), 5 geothermal projects (87 MW), and 4 water power projects (11 MW)." source

Some interesting excerts from Muchael Grunwald's "New New Deal" book:
"The energy stuff wasn't just big, it was ginormous. It's hard to get people twice as excited about $90 billion as they would be about $45 billion, or 10 times more than they would be about $9 billion, but even $9 billion would have been ginormous. Ten years earlier, [President] Clinton pushed a five-year, $6 billion clean energy bill that went nowhere; at the time it was seen as preposterous and unrealistic, and it was. And here, 10 years later, $90 billion in the guy's first month in office. Plus it leveraged another $100 billion in private money." Source
 
2012-09-12 03:51:22 PM

MrSteve007: r8doman: Redid the math...forgot to carry the decimal point. It's less than 10% capacity...

Still not very efficient

You need to readjust that math some. The 2,800 MW is for capacity being online at this moment, today. 6,209 million kWh is for total generation in 2011, when installed capacity was closer to ~2,200MW

If they ran 100% for the year, that would be 19,272 million kWh ((2200 megawatts * 24-hours = 52,800,000,000 watt-hours) times 365 days = 19,272,000,000,000 watt-hours. Converted to kWh, that is 19,272,000,000 kWh.

6,209 million kWh divided by 19,272 million kWh = 32% capacity factor.


(Accepts your math)...and assuming the wind blows constantly for 24 hours daily...for all 365 days, you might maybe someday possibly get 32%.

They're still an inefficient waste of resources...meaning real estate. Unless we open up Yellowstone and places like that to those ugly bird-killing monstrosities.
 
2012-09-12 04:11:12 PM

MrSteve007: b>pdee: In terms of producing usable power or reducing fossil fuel usage yea pretty much.

Wow, in what world do you live in? Because that isn't reality. I can start off with the macro (at least on a state level). Here in my State, here's our growth in wind energy capacity, through 2011:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x451]
As of today, we're up to 2,800 MW of installed wind capacity. Last year, it generated 6,209 million kilowatt-hours. Because of this new generation, we're able to permanently shut-down our state's only coal plant - Link

So yeah, real wind power, directly reducing fossil fuel use.


Hence the reason there is such a fight against wind and other green / renewable energy sources, it reduces the profits of "big coal".
 
2012-09-12 04:22:30 PM

MrSteve007: Because of this new generation, we're able to permanently shut-down our state's only coal plant - Link


Not all the way. Don't forget that wind is not baseloaded power. To replace this you need the abiliy to supplant any demand of this nature with additioal baseloaded sources (or transmission agreements with other utilities). Washington is lucky since it is a hydro state and has baseloaded power capacity running out of its ears.

For relative size, total wind in the state is about 40% of the general output of Grand Coulee Dam and produced about 30% of the power that this dam did..

Wind power is great but let's not pretend that it is something that it is not.
 
2012-09-12 04:29:38 PM

r8doman: Accepts your math)...and assuming the wind blows constantly for 24 hours daily...for all 365 days, you might maybe someday possibly get 32%.

They're still an inefficient waste of resources...meaning real estate. Unless we open up Yellowstone and places like that to those ugly bird-killing monstrosities.


Uhhh, dude. You realize that my 6,209 million kWh (which I sourced the link) comes directly from the Federal U.S. Energy Information Administration as actual annual production. There isn't any estimating in that number. 32% is the capacity factor for wind in WA State in 2011. There is no "might, maybe, someday" in that statement. It is fact.

r8doman: They're still an inefficient waste of resources...meaning real estate. Unless we open up Yellowstone and places like that to those ugly bird-killing monstrosities.


As for the waste of resources, almost all turbines are put on either: A. Ridgetops: which aren't all that good to develop. B. Farmland: where 98% of the land is still usable to agricultural use, plus gives the farmer a steady lease income. C. Offshore. No one is advocating putting any up in Yellowstone (interestingly, my girlfriend is a Park Guide there).

As for "bird killing" - I can't comment on all turbines, I know the one closest to my house has averaged 1 bird strike, per turbine, per year - over the past 5 years. Whereas, a typical outdoor housecat kills two animals a week. Source

The local turbines also make good places for larger game to rest in the shade . . . 
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-12 04:37:55 PM

heavymetal: Hence the reason there is such a fight against wind and other green / renewable energy sources, it reduces the profits of "big coal".


Uh, 'Big Coal' in Washington provides about 10% of the power to the state. Again, the big players in the NW are all hydro. And speaking of that the BPA has ordered these wind farms to be shut down in the past due to a glut of power and the fact that the transmission lines cannot handle it all.

And don't forget that the radical enviros here are calling for a teardown of hydro dams as well. Someone needs to tell these folks that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
 
2012-09-12 04:41:03 PM

HeadLever: Washington is lucky since it is a hydro state and has baseloaded power capacity running out of its ears.

For relative size, total wind in the state is about 40% of the general output of Grand Coulee Dam and produced about 30% of the power that this dam did..

Wind power is great but let's not pretend that it is something that it is not.


Well, you are comparing a number of small wind plants to the largest single source of electricity in North America. You are correct about our baseload running out of our ears. I believe the latest number has WA hydro power output being 300% larger than our state's annual demand. When it comes to energy, we're rolling in it (which is also why our state's energy prices are some of the lowest in the developed world).

We're currently in a hot-dry spell, so the wind is fairly intermittent right now, but it is interesting to see how it directly correlates to reduced hydro production this week:
transmission.bpa.gov 
On Sunday & Monday, wind provided 3/4 of the electricity required for the region.
 
2012-09-12 04:50:40 PM
Another constraint to the implementation of this plan is the fact that the mining and processing of rare earth elements for these turbines is a messy and political problem. For reference, a typical turbine uses about 1,300 pounds of neodynium and other rare earths and 98% all Rare Earth production is based in China.

and the NIMBYs. Never forget the NIMBYs.
 
2012-09-12 04:59:24 PM

MrSteve007: believe the latest number has WA hydro power output being 300% larger than our state's annual demand.


Really? I thought it was 150% or so. Damn, that is huge.
 
2012-09-12 05:09:19 PM

HeadLever: heavymetal: Hence the reason there is such a fight against wind and other green / renewable energy sources, it reduces the profits of "big coal".

Uh, 'Big Coal' in Washington provides about 10% of the power to the state. Again, the big players in the NW are all hydro. And speaking of that the BPA has ordered these wind farms to be shut down in the past due to a glut of power and the fact that the transmission lines cannot handle it all.

And don't forget that the radical enviros here are calling for a teardown of hydro dams as well. Someone needs to tell these folks that there is no such thing as a free lunch.


I didn't know that Washington State was the only state in the union that used coal for energy. Since I was referring to the entire nation that must be what you meant. I guess I stand corrected because according to you the only coal used in the U.S. is in Washington State and being since it is only 10% of their energy then the U.S. coal lobby is small, poor, and lacks any political muscle.
 
2012-09-12 05:25:32 PM

HeadLever: Really? I thought it was 150% or so. Damn, that is huge.


I believe that's for purely the BPA. When you factor in the production of the publicly owned dams of Seattle City light, Tacoma Power, etc - that number gets bumped up significantly.

heavymetal: I didn't know that Washington State was the only state in the union that used coal for energy. Since I was referring to the entire nation that must be what you meant. I guess I stand corrected because according to you the only coal used in the U.S. is in Washington State and being since it is only 10% of their energy then the U.S. coal lobby is small, poor, and lacks any political muscle.


After 2020~2025, when both Oregon and Washington shut down our last coal plants - there won't be a single operating coal plant on the Pacific Coast. And considering 1 out of 6 Americans live in these 3-states, that's a pretty big deal.
 
2012-09-12 06:05:31 PM

heavymetal: I didn't know that Washington State was the only state in the union that used coal for energy.


You were responding directly to an argument about the power generation of a specific state. You characterization of context being the entire nation was not conveyed. You may try to up your communication skills some.

And my 'fight against' renewables is not one based on some faceless boogy man. It is the fact that many renewables are not practicle (not baseload) and have major costs that are often hidden by subsidies. I would love for us to be able to shutter more coal plats, however, as I said before - there is no such thing as a free lunch. In some cases, wind and solar works great. However, in other cases, they are cash cows that churn out more government subsidies than they do electricity.
 
2012-09-13 08:15:20 AM

draypresct: untaken_name: We could power the whole Earth from the USA for 30k years with very few harmful emissions by using geothermal power. It would be relatively cheap, too. But for some reason, we're still using mostly coal to generate electricity. Wonder why we're using a relatively expensive, dirty, non-renewable method instead of an easy, cheap, clean method...

Current % of US power generated by geothermal:less than 0.5%, although it sounds like we might be on track to achieve nearly 1% by 2025.
Link

How long would it take to increase our geothermal plants by a factor of >200 to handle the current US load (let alone future growth)?

And, ignoring the fact that "power the whole Earth" is probably meant to be hyperbole, how are you planning to transmit this power to the other countries?

Troll: Sounds like you're in favor of nuclear energy. Why not just dig up some of the fissionable material and use it more efficiently, instead of leaving it in the ground and trying to indirectly tap it using a process that releases arsenic into the environment? /troll


It wasn't hyperbole. You basically just drill a hole (only 2 miles deep, when oil companies routinely drill 5miles), and put a turbine at the top of the hole. That's basically it. How long does that take? Not long. We could provide the amount of power the entire world uses for 30k years with geothermal plants in the USA. I am not saying we should give it to the rest of the world, I was using it as a point to demonstrate the capacity we COULD have. Also, the process only sometimes releases arsenic, and it releases it into hot rocks or volcanoes and who freaking cares at that point? You going scuba-ing in some lava sometime soon?

/that's how you throw a troll on the end, bro
 
2012-09-13 08:16:29 AM

FlashHarry: untaken_name: FlashHarry: obama: pro-wind
romney: anti-wind

Both: full of wind

so vote republican?


Voting is for suckers. If you vote, you are stupid. Period, point blank, no two ways about it.
 
2012-09-13 09:43:46 AM

untaken_name: draypresct: untaken_name: We could power the whole Earth from the USA for 30k years with very few harmful emissions by using geothermal power. It would be relatively cheap, too. But for some reason, we're still using mostly coal to generate electricity. Wonder why we're using a relatively expensive, dirty, non-renewable method instead of an easy, cheap, clean method...

Current % of US power generated by geothermal:less than 0.5%, although it sounds like we might be on track to achieve nearly 1% by 2025.
Link

How long would it take to increase our geothermal plants by a factor of >200 to handle the current US load (let alone future growth)?

And, ignoring the fact that "power the whole Earth" is probably meant to be hyperbole, how are you planning to transmit this power to the other countries?

Troll: Sounds like you're in favor of nuclear energy. Why not just dig up some of the fissionable material and use it more efficiently, instead of leaving it in the ground and trying to indirectly tap it using a process that releases arsenic into the environment? /troll

It wasn't hyperbole. You basically just drill a hole (only 2 miles deep, when oil companies routinely drill 5miles), and put a turbine at the top of the hole. That's basically it. How long does that take? Not long. We could provide the amount of power the entire world uses for 30k years with geothermal plants in the USA. I am not saying we should give it to the rest of the world, I was using it as a point to demonstrate the capacity we COULD have. Also, the process only sometimes releases arsenic, and it releases it into hot rocks or volcanoes and who freaking cares at that point? You going scuba-ing in some lava sometime soon?

/that's how you throw a troll on the end, bro


Re: US geothermal capacity:
My objection about transmission was to your original statement: "We could power the whole Earth from the USA for 30k years", which is slightly different from "We could provide the amount of power the entire world uses for 30k years with geothermal plants in the USA".

More seriously, I question our ability to build more than 200 times more geothermal plants quickly in order to handle the US load alone, let alone the rest of the world. Do you have any information about what it costs (I don't know, myself) to dig all these separate holes for geothermal? How much of a capital investment are we talking about?



Re: Geothermal & pollution:
I'll concede that geothermal, as it is currently practiced, probably has fewer byproducts than coal or gas. Theoretically, their pollutants could probably be reduced even further, with arsenic restricted to being released onto hot rocks and the resultant arsenic-laden steam contained. As geothermal is currently practiced, geothermal energy releases arsenic into the environment.

From Link

"A serious environmental effect of the geothermal industry is arsenic pollution. Levels of arsenic in the Waikato River almost always exceed the World Health Organisation standard for drinking water of 0.01 parts per million. Most of the arsenic comes from geothermal waste water discharged from the Wairākei power station. Natural features such as hot springs are also a source of arsenic, but it tends to be removed from the water as colourful mineral precipitates like bright red realgar and yellowy green orpiment."

/Just quoting - I don't even know that "realgar" and "orpiment" are actual words.


Re: trolling
The scuba in lava bit was a nice touch, but I'd call it sarcasm, not trolling. It was good sarcasm, but I always thought of a troll as something that could conceivably be taken as a serious argument, meant to provoke a response.

/I'm getting to damn pedantic. I should have a drink - coffee or alcohol or something.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report