If you're working in the tech industry, wouldn't it be nice to be able to date somebody who shared similar interests?
Slight tangent here, but why does everyone always assume that the best match for you is a [b/g]f/spouse who has the same interests as you? In my experience, opposites tend to work best. Not only does differing interests give you something to talk about, but your different areas of expertise help you complete each other. I don't know where I'd be if my wife was just as absent minded as I am, and I doubt she knows how she'd attack issues without some of the technical ability I have. She knows animals, people, and finances, and I know computers, cars, and minor home repairs. Between the two of us, we can attack any problem that may come along.
If you always date someone who's just like you, you'll find that you're not getting anything long term out of the relationship. (I'll leave you to figure out the short term benefits.)
Getting back on topic, women should only enter Tech if they want to. Using it as a way to look for men to date is a BAD idea. Especially given the jackasses that exist in this industry who wouldn't know how to be kind to a woman if a manual fell on their heads. (Apologizes to the 12.5% of Slashdot that doesn't fit in this category.;-))
Most games for windows use D3D. Consoles are still a big business, and OpenGL rules the day on those. Also, major engines like Doom III and UnrealEngine 3 have Direct3D and OpenGL modes to help with portability.
3) Carmack says so.;-) yeah, ok. good reason
That's a joke. Smile.:-)
Which also means it takes long YEARS for a new version to come out, how long have we been waiting on OpenGL 2.0?
I believe you mean, "how long were we waiting on OpenGL 2.0?" And you're right. Quite awhile. But in the meantime, extensions were making up for the slack while things got worked out. OpenGL 2.0 ended up being released in time to be highly competitive.
Graphics Programming is a portable skill, I've never met a good graphics programmer who couldnt switch between the two on the fly. Honestly if you can only do graphics in 1 or the other that's pretty worthless.
I agree, Graphics Programming is portable. That doesn't mean that the time to learn Microsoft's latest reorg of DirectX is zero. Even OpenGL's latest stuff takes time to learn, but at least most programmers can keep up on it before the newest version becomes available. Microsoft wants you to become a partner or somesuch nonsense to get access to all the info you need.
They are both tools, use the one that is best for the job.
I can think of a few ways off the top of my head, but none I'd actually like to try coding. For example, you can divy up the collision detection process across different threads to have each processor test a given percentage of objects. Similarly, you can assign the physics handling for different objects across different processors.
The article suggests that this be done by having a single "controller" processor rapid fire the tasks to the other processors. While this would work, it's also less efficient than a true parallel scheme. The article also mentions this, and comments that the scheme could result in poor utilization of the system's processors. But if a true parallel scheme is used, then it's difficult to reassign the processors in case a sudden jump in processing ability is required for, say, graphics over physics.
So it would seem that there's still some question as to how useful the multi-processors concept actually is in games. At least until new methodolgies emerge.:-)
Thee article you cite to doesn't really support your conclusion of OpenGL being a "god-send."
OpenGL is a God-send for a couple of reasons, IMHO:
1) The API is well known by developers, and has remained stable from version to version. This reduces the amount of R&D and training that need to be done for a game.
2) Use of OpenGL allows for portable code. While you can't completely get away with writing the same code between a PC version and a Console version, much of the rendering engine at least has a chance of getting reused.
3) Carmack says so.;-)
4) New features actually go through a standards process, meaning that they get more documentation than just "whatever Microsoft feels like telling you".
5) DirectX is a non-portable skill. It ties you to Windows and the X-Box(s). OpenGL "ties" you to the Gamecube, Windows, PS2, PS3, Linux, Macintosh, etc.
That's my opinion, for what it's worth. That and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee, so take it as you will.
We can tell Immediate Mode/Retained Mode is ancient history.
Thank God. It was stupid to begin with, yet Microsoft kept pushing it version after version. I know it was still there at least as high as DirectX 5.0.
With OpenGL having been ported to just about every platform in existence, it just doesn't make that much sense to bother with DirectX unless you really have to. (Which thanks to Microsoft's interference, does happen to professional developers. Poor bastards.)
Apparently, the machine's use of Open GL as its graphics API means that anyone who's ever written games for the PC will be intimately familiar with the set-up.
As a programmer, I can attest to OpenGL being a God-send. Not only are programmers intimately familiar with the technology, but it was designed from the beginning with portability in mind. Direct3D, OTOH, tends to follow Microsoft's practices of hiding what's really going on behind the scenes. It's been a little while since I've bothered with Direct3D, but one of Microsoft's biggest features used to be their own SceneGraph known as "Retained Mode". For some reason, Microsoft believed that everyone would want to use their Scenegraph only and damn technological progress. Most programmers who were in the know immediately bypassed this ridiculousness and went straight for the "Immediate Mode" APIs, which weren't as well documented. (Thanks Microsoft)
Other than that, a computer is a computer, and game programming has always required a strong knowledge of how computers operate. So it's not too surprising that it would be "just like any other programming +/- a few gotchas".
Save Mega$$$ by using Amazon for your purchase instead of... err... nothing! Just think of the... umm... wait. You're spending more money WITh a link than without, aren't you? Soooo... umm... just think! This book could Pay For Itself(TM)! (Yeah, right.):-P
He linked to this (factual), and stated that ethanol is:
1. a fuel source
2. not a viable replacement for oil
3. has a much lower fuel efficency
4. is still non-renewable.
All of which is correct (#4 might be limited to "as produced today", but not #2 or #3).
Ahem. From your link: "This is a controversial subject charged with potential bias. Much of it depends on what is included and what is excluded from the calculation, particularly when compared with the energy balance of the production of gasoline itself. Analyses are greatly complicated by various methods of accounting for the energy value coproducts and consideration of alternate uses of the feedstock. Not surprisingly, this debate has been at best inconclusive to date."
To address your points more precisely:
1. The argument over whether or not Ethanol is energy positive will be what determines whether it is a fuel source or not. From Brazil's usage we know that a positive balance is possible. Either way, it's still a fuel. As I said before (which you keep agreeing with despite your claims), Ethanol would consolidate our fuel infrastructure, making it easier to optimize our energy usage. If Ethanol fails to be energy positive, the extra power can be farmed from higher up on the grid. e.g. Nuclear power.
2. The article does not state that it is not a viable replacement for oil. It states, (and I quote AGAIN): "Not surprisingly, this debate has been at best inconclusive to date." That's "inconclusive". As in, "no conclusion can be reached". As in, "it's still open for debate". As in, "you've proved nothing". Except for perhaps, a personal bias. (Which is fine. Just tone down the theatrics, please.)
3. Ethanol is capable of burning far more efficiently in engines than gasoline. This helps make up for a significant percentage of the energy density difference by extracting a greater percentage of the energy from the fuel. That was the point that this poster was trying to make. Believe it or not, it does work in the real world, which is why Ethanol is used as an Octane Booster. From the same Wikipedia article: "One advantage shared by all four alcohols is octane rating. Butanol has the additional attraction that its energy per kilogram is closer to gasoline than the other alcohols (while still retaining over 25% higher octane rating). [...] Ethanol in a blend with gasoline replaces tetra ethyl lead, benzene and MTBE -- all of which are additives that are meant to raise octane levels."
4. Your own source has this to say about the renewability of Ethanol: "David Pimentel disputes that "ethanol production from corn" is a renewable energy source. However, Pimentel's studies have been widely discredited, and also fails to compare other viable sources of ethanol such as Sugar beets and Sugarcane."
Why didn't YOU address any of those salient points?
Excuse me, but I do believe that's what I'm doing. As I pointed out above and in other posts, you need to read your own sources in order to understand both sides of the issue. I have no problem with you having a bias, but your dismissivness of the counter-points has no place in an open discussion.
Have YOU? We burned 139 billion gallons of gasoline in 2004. A gallon of ethanol has the energy of about.66 gallon of gasoline, so that would make ~210 billion gallons of ethanol equivalent. The whole 2004 US corn crop (a record harvest, BTW) would make ~31 billion gallons, so you'd need ALMOST SEVEN TIMES THE HARVEST to replace gasoline.
1. I used your own figures in my counter-point. If you disagree with them, then don't provide them as the core of your argument.
2. You're also assuming that Corn is the only crop
Can you really sue a company for defrauding another company, neither of which you represent?
Difficult to say. In this case he may be able to argue that consumers were directly defrauded through the defrauding of the ESRB (a consumer protection agency of sorts). Whether he'll be successful or not is up to the judge to decide.
I think you misunderstand the argument. The content he's referring to would not be the solution of a Sherlock Holmes book, but rather that it's a mystery story that may involve investigations of murder, theft, personal relationships, and various other acts of criminal or personal nature. If Conan Doyle suddenly broke into a steamy scene indicitive of a cheap romance novel, you'd probably be yelling "What the [insert explicative]?!"
That being said, I can't think of any laws that force a publisher to give away even the basic plot, much less the overall content. The only recourse I can see this lawyer following is to prosecute Rockstar on allegations of fraud in relation to the rating they received from the ESRB.
Um.. not sure this is a question, but if there is such a thing as gravitons, what's up with einstein's curvature of space-time, and then, how come they could "escape" from black holes that easily?
Actually, that's a really good question. I don't know the answer (you might want to bring it up earlier next time the topic comes up so a few physicists can get in on this), but I'd imagine that gravitons don't affect gravitons. Thus the force of gravity would espcape a black hole.
As for relativity, I also have major reservations about the how Einstein describes gravity as a natural curve of the Universe vs. the discrete particle theory. However, most of Einsteins work has to do with the perspective of the viewer. e.g. If you travel at near light-speed, you won't see your actual speed, but the rest of the universe will seem to shrink around you. (Including the fourth dimension, time.) This is what's referred to as a space-time warp. (You can argue till you're blue in the face whether or not the universe actually warps or not. The answer will always be "depends on your frame of reference".) I imagine that similar logic was applied to the graviton theory in that the wash of particles makes a curvature appear in the same way that particles of H2O can produce a sinusoidal ripple effect. (i.e. The waves you get when you drop a stone in a pond.)
I'm disgusted that this has been modded up to 5 (despite at least one "overrated" mod), when the very next comment provided links to info and far more insightful and factual commentary.
I'm sorry, but why are you linking to him? He didn't provide any facts. He provided a few "go search for yourself" links, and was refuted by respondants. There's quite a bit of discussion regarding the viability of Ethanol as a fuel. Simply linking to some random poster and saying, "This guy is right!" does not resolve the issue. (Especially when he doesn't even refute anything I've said.)
Total from the whole corn crop (g'bye, Tony the Tiger and Corn Chex) and all that biomass would be 118 billion gallons/year. We burned 139 billion gallons of gasoline in 2004 (9,063,000 barrels/day), plus another 4 million bbl/day of distillate (diesel) and 1.6 million bbl/day of jet fuel. Ethanol isn't going to do the job no matter what, and hyping it as The Solution just because it isn't hydrogen is a huge mistake.
You've taken our total production and then proclaimed that Ethanol can't do the job. Question? Have you considered that we can increase our crop production? Amercian farmers produce far less crops than they could simply because there is an insufficient market. The government actually pays farmers to leave large swaths of fields bare. Now I've been operating under the understanding that we'd have to double our crop yeilds to produce enough Ethanol to meet the needs of fuel consumption, but let's go with your figures for a moment. Your figures show a 21 billion barrel deficit in the necessary number of barrels. Thus we need a 17.7% increase in the amount of Ethanol produced in order to meet the demand. Why do you see that as a problem?
The problem with ethanol is, ironically, that it is compatible with the existing vehicle fleet. That fleet has an average tank-to-wheels efficiency of 14.9%. Lead-acid batteries are about 70% efficient, Li-ion is closer to 95%. We are far better off going plug-in hybrid than wasting our money on ethanol.
Efficiency isn't the entire formula here. If it was just about efficieny, we'd all be driving electric cars. In fact, it's about range and fuel economy. It's about keeping the transportation system we have. Replacing our fuel infrastructure and our cars would be one of the most expensive replacements in history. No one wants to do it. No one wants to be forced to purchase a new vehicle, fuel station owners don't want to be forced to invest hundreds of thousands each in new pumps, and fuel producers don't want to invest billions (trillions?) in new hydrogen production technology. That's why Hydrogen isn't appealing. Ethanol can reuse most of that infrastructure with only fractional losses in energy density.
I agree with you that I'd like to see Hydrogen as the final solution, but a sudden shift just isn't going to happen.
BTW, there's fairly complete selection of papers on the Ethanol problem here. It's even helpfully divided into the papers showing figures against (amounts to mostly just Pimentel) and for (everyone else).
Moderators: when the parent is back down to 2, it's about where it ought to be.
Oh yeah? Mods! Mod parent up for providing links to interesting fuel consumption figures.:-P
This is a discussion, not a war. Everyone has their position and their points to be made. The point is to mod up posts that are salient to the topic at hand.
The neutrino is a particle, but can we shield against it?
Yes. Any sufficiently dense mass will completely shield against them. A less dense mass (like the Earth) is only partly successful in shielding against them. (They're so small, they keep missing.) Read the discussion above your post for more on this. Also feel free to Google for Neutrino capture experiments.
Blech. This, "Most of the stuff is only dangerous for the first month or so." should read, "Most of the stuff that is dangerous, is only dangerous for the first month or so."
If you value your life, you'll go for the plutonium.
What happens if the US descends into anarchy as a result of a stock market crash 100 years from now? Still safe? We've still got to deal with the stuff. And keep guards on the storage sites.
Safe from what? Your overactive imagination about glowing mutant babies? Most of the stuff they (will) stick in Yucca Mountain isn't even dangerous enough to shield against. Most of the stuff is only dangerous for the first month or so. (Which will stay in cooling pools until it cools off anyway.) The only real danger posed by the spent fuel is if it makes its way into the water table. That could cause an increase (not an epidemic, mind you, an increase) in the cancer rates.
If you have a SPECIFIC concern, please share it with us and I'll be happy to refute it. Otherwise stop watching so many bad movies.
Although it is safe in normal operation, things can always go wrong, and they do. Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident could wipe out populations and make huge areas uninhanitable for decades.
While I agree with the latter part of your argument, the former part is incorrect. The worst nuclear accident in history (Chernobyl) failed to "wipe out" even the population of the local city. A total of 56 people have died to date, with an expected final death rate of 4,000 due to Chernobyl-related illnesses. There were about 1,800 documented cases of Thyroid cancer from the event. FAQ/Findings
Current radiation levels are actually lower than the natural background levels for areas like Norway. However, the higher content of radioisotopes in the soil makes it unwise to live there. Despite this, many residents have moved back into the area.
The Chernobyl event is quite comparable to the 5-day, 1952 London incident where 3,000 people died from coal pollution.
The radiation released by coal is not that significant, and blends into background levels.
It's not the radiation you should be concerned about. It's breathing the radioisotopes into your lungs and blood stream. Once there, the radioisotopes have a chance to do the MOST damage by hitting the soft tissues with direct doses of radiation. Normally your skin provides a great deal of protection, but large internal doses tend to circumvent that protection.
But the way it's handled is what makes nuclear power so dangerous, and that's the reason so many people oppose it.
The way it's handled is what makes coal so dangerous. That's the reason why so many people should be opposed to it.
From the University of Michigan: "Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning."
I think the results are clear. Coal is FAR more dangerous than nuclear.
Ships already have balast tanks that they fill as they burn fuel or hold less cargo weight to ride lower in the water.
Indeed. But ballast tanks add additional storage room and cannot entirely compensate.
As for putting reactors in ships, US Nuclear carriers are probably a start for anyone attempting to do this.
I can do you one better than that. Meet the good ship NS Savannah, a 595ft long, 22,000 ton merchant ship capable of cruising the oceans full of 8.5 kilotons of cargo at a blistering 21 knots. The ship was part of the Atoms for Peace campaign, and was intended to show off how Nuclear Power could change things forever. Unfortunately, the ship suffered from a few problems:
1) Her streamlined hull (designed more for showcasing purposes than realistic usage) made cargo loading difficult. 2) She needed nuclear facilities all to her own. This added significant expense that could have been marginalized by producing more than one ship. 3) Fuel was extremely cheap when she was constructed. Had the ship remained in service for a few more years, her costs would have been extremely competitive.
If we learn from these experiences, I (and many others) see absolutely no financial or technical reason why nuclear merchant ships cannot again enter service. Especially with the prices of petroleum being as high as they are now. In addition, the Navy's use of nuclear power (as you mentioned) has given us a tremendous amount of experience to draw from.
The only problem is that you need multiple fully trained nuclear technicians to watch the reactors. Hmm... Maybe they can get them from the navy when they retire.
In fact, this has been considered an excellent idea. Most other areas of the service already have this sort of option. For example, Navy pilots often go to work as civilian pilots after they complete their tour. Their experience means that they can command high wages in the civilian market. To date, naval operators are often forced to work as land based nuclear operators if they want the full benefit of their experience, a market that is constantly shrinking. Merchant plants would provide excellent jobs for these operators, as well as reduce the overall costs to merchant fleets.
The multi megawatt electric motors the US Navy is investing in testing/developing would help this a long way. (Electric drive allows for fewer reactors, as you don't need to dedicate one reactor per screw)
Electric drives are actually becoming quite common in the civilian market as well. The Queen Mary 2, for example, went for all-electric propulsors rather than the standard direct drive configuration. This allowed her to mount two directed thrust propulsors in addition to two fixed propulsors.
In any case, multiple screws can provide more maneuverability, but are not an outright requirement. The NS Savannah only had a single screw through which to direct the entirity of her 74MW of power. AFAIK, this was never a major issue.:-)
Don't forget that as a bonus, more PU-238 becomes available for use in Space Probes and other radioisotope thermal generator applications. Once the Pu-239 is burned up in the reactors, the remaining Tritium, Strontium, Cesium, Americanium, and other materials can then be divied up and resold for medical and industrial use.
Second, corrupt, incompotence, and lack of over sight. Check out the nuclear energy system in France. It's heavily governed, has strict regulation, design requirements, etc... In the US we have reactors that are in use beyond their expected life, storing significantly more spent fuel then designed, cutting corners on down time, bribing inspectors, and of all different designs and natures.
In analyzing this point, it's very important to ask the question, "Why is the system this way?" The answer is quite simple: Almost no nuclear reactors have been built since the 80's. The last one was made operational in 1996, ten years ago. This situation is caused by the politcial football that Nuclear Power has become. Any new nuclear plants must face thousands of regulatory issues, environmentalist protests, impact statements, and political resistance. The resistance is so high to opening new plants, that the cost and time required to open a new plant makes it impossible.
Meanwhile, plant operators struggle to keep their existing plants online well past their expected lifetimes. Nuclear Plants continue to close left and right, and it is only slightly less problematic to replace them with dirty coal fired plants. One way or another energy producers are losing. Demand continues to rise while generating capacity lags behind. Someone has GOT to shove through the cruft and make it profitable again to open power plants. Unless that happens, Americans will not see any new nuclear power, especially not safe nuclear power.
It is about high time countries started giving serious attention to nuclear energy as an option and the research required to make it safe and effective.
Indeed. In fact, if a solution could be found to protecting reactors against high-seas piracy, I'd love to see our merchant ships switch over from fossil fuels. I mean, these big suckers burn through gallons of fuel per foot, and burn some of the dirtiest crap left over from the petroleum distillation processes. In addition, these fuels take up a significant chunk of the ships' cargo capacity, meaning that more trips are needed to carry the same amount of cargo as a nuclear powered ship. This also means that the ships can be made safer as they won't rise in the water so high as they burn through the fuel. Rather, they'll stay at the same low-level throughout their entire trip, ensuring that the ship is kept stable even in poor weather.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're working in the tech industry, wouldn't it be nice to be able to date somebody who shared similar interests?
;-))
Slight tangent here, but why does everyone always assume that the best match for you is a [b/g]f/spouse who has the same interests as you? In my experience, opposites tend to work best. Not only does differing interests give you something to talk about, but your different areas of expertise help you complete each other. I don't know where I'd be if my wife was just as absent minded as I am, and I doubt she knows how she'd attack issues without some of the technical ability I have. She knows animals, people, and finances, and I know computers, cars, and minor home repairs. Between the two of us, we can attack any problem that may come along.
If you always date someone who's just like you, you'll find that you're not getting anything long term out of the relationship. (I'll leave you to figure out the short term benefits.)
Getting back on topic, women should only enter Tech if they want to. Using it as a way to look for men to date is a BAD idea. Especially given the jackasses that exist in this industry who wouldn't know how to be kind to a woman if a manual fell on their heads. (Apologizes to the 12.5% of Slashdot that doesn't fit in this category.
Uh most games nowadays use D3D.
;-)
:-)
:-)
Most games for windows use D3D. Consoles are still a big business, and OpenGL rules the day on those. Also, major engines like Doom III and UnrealEngine 3 have Direct3D and OpenGL modes to help with portability.
3) Carmack says so.
yeah, ok. good reason
That's a joke. Smile.
Which also means it takes long YEARS for a new version to come out, how long have we been waiting on OpenGL 2.0?
I believe you mean, "how long were we waiting on OpenGL 2.0?" And you're right. Quite awhile. But in the meantime, extensions were making up for the slack while things got worked out. OpenGL 2.0 ended up being released in time to be highly competitive.
Graphics Programming is a portable skill, I've never met a good graphics programmer who couldnt switch between the two on the fly. Honestly if you can only do graphics in 1 or the other that's pretty worthless.
I agree, Graphics Programming is portable. That doesn't mean that the time to learn Microsoft's latest reorg of DirectX is zero. Even OpenGL's latest stuff takes time to learn, but at least most programmers can keep up on it before the newest version becomes available. Microsoft wants you to become a partner or somesuch nonsense to get access to all the info you need.
They are both tools, use the one that is best for the job.
Indeed.
I can think of a few ways off the top of my head, but none I'd actually like to try coding. For example, you can divy up the collision detection process across different threads to have each processor test a given percentage of objects. Similarly, you can assign the physics handling for different objects across different processors.
:-)
The article suggests that this be done by having a single "controller" processor rapid fire the tasks to the other processors. While this would work, it's also less efficient than a true parallel scheme. The article also mentions this, and comments that the scheme could result in poor utilization of the system's processors. But if a true parallel scheme is used, then it's difficult to reassign the processors in case a sudden jump in processing ability is required for, say, graphics over physics.
So it would seem that there's still some question as to how useful the multi-processors concept actually is in games. At least until new methodolgies emerge.
Thee article you cite to doesn't really support your conclusion of OpenGL being a "god-send."
;-)
OpenGL is a God-send for a couple of reasons, IMHO:
1) The API is well known by developers, and has remained stable from version to version. This reduces the amount of R&D and training that need to be done for a game.
2) Use of OpenGL allows for portable code. While you can't completely get away with writing the same code between a PC version and a Console version, much of the rendering engine at least has a chance of getting reused.
3) Carmack says so.
4) New features actually go through a standards process, meaning that they get more documentation than just "whatever Microsoft feels like telling you".
5) DirectX is a non-portable skill. It ties you to Windows and the X-Box(s). OpenGL "ties" you to the Gamecube, Windows, PS2, PS3, Linux, Macintosh, etc.
That's my opinion, for what it's worth. That and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee, so take it as you will.
We can tell Immediate Mode/Retained Mode is ancient history.
Thank God. It was stupid to begin with, yet Microsoft kept pushing it version after version. I know it was still there at least as high as DirectX 5.0.
With OpenGL having been ported to just about every platform in existence, it just doesn't make that much sense to bother with DirectX unless you really have to. (Which thanks to Microsoft's interference, does happen to professional developers. Poor bastards.)
Apparently, the machine's use of Open GL as its graphics API means that anyone who's ever written games for the PC will be intimately familiar with the set-up.
As a programmer, I can attest to OpenGL being a God-send. Not only are programmers intimately familiar with the technology, but it was designed from the beginning with portability in mind. Direct3D, OTOH, tends to follow Microsoft's practices of hiding what's really going on behind the scenes. It's been a little while since I've bothered with Direct3D, but one of Microsoft's biggest features used to be their own SceneGraph known as "Retained Mode". For some reason, Microsoft believed that everyone would want to use their Scenegraph only and damn technological progress. Most programmers who were in the know immediately bypassed this ridiculousness and went straight for the "Immediate Mode" APIs, which weren't as well documented. (Thanks Microsoft)
Wikipedia has a comparison of Direct3D vs. OpenGL here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_vs._OpenGL
Other than that, a computer is a computer, and game programming has always required a strong knowledge of how computers operate. So it's not too surprising that it would be "just like any other programming +/- a few gotchas".
Hold on, I can help!
:-P
Save Mega$$$ by using Amazon for your purchase instead of... err... nothing! Just think of the... umm... wait. You're spending more money WITh a link than without, aren't you? Soooo... umm... just think! This book could Pay For Itself(TM)! (Yeah, right.)
What a great way to spend my lunch break. Thanks! :)
Do you have a mirror? The author seems to have removed the file.
He linked to this (factual), and stated that ethanol is:
.66 gallon of gasoline, so that would make ~210 billion gallons of ethanol equivalent. The whole 2004 US corn crop (a record harvest, BTW) would make ~31 billion gallons, so you'd need ALMOST SEVEN TIMES THE HARVEST to replace gasoline.
1. a fuel source
2. not a viable replacement for oil
3. has a much lower fuel efficency
4. is still non-renewable.
All of which is correct (#4 might be limited to "as produced today", but not #2 or #3).
Ahem. From your link: "This is a controversial subject charged with potential bias. Much of it depends on what is included and what is excluded from the calculation, particularly when compared with the energy balance of the production of gasoline itself. Analyses are greatly complicated by various methods of accounting for the energy value coproducts and consideration of alternate uses of the feedstock. Not surprisingly, this debate has been at best inconclusive to date. "
To address your points more precisely:
1. The argument over whether or not Ethanol is energy positive will be what determines whether it is a fuel source or not. From Brazil's usage we know that a positive balance is possible. Either way, it's still a fuel. As I said before (which you keep agreeing with despite your claims), Ethanol would consolidate our fuel infrastructure, making it easier to optimize our energy usage. If Ethanol fails to be energy positive, the extra power can be farmed from higher up on the grid. e.g. Nuclear power.
2. The article does not state that it is not a viable replacement for oil. It states, (and I quote AGAIN): "Not surprisingly, this debate has been at best inconclusive to date." That's "inconclusive". As in, "no conclusion can be reached". As in, "it's still open for debate". As in, "you've proved nothing". Except for perhaps, a personal bias. (Which is fine. Just tone down the theatrics, please.)
3. Ethanol is capable of burning far more efficiently in engines than gasoline. This helps make up for a significant percentage of the energy density difference by extracting a greater percentage of the energy from the fuel. That was the point that this poster was trying to make. Believe it or not, it does work in the real world, which is why Ethanol is used as an Octane Booster. From the same Wikipedia article: "One advantage shared by all four alcohols is octane rating. Butanol has the additional attraction that its energy per kilogram is closer to gasoline than the other alcohols (while still retaining over 25% higher octane rating). [...] Ethanol in a blend with gasoline replaces tetra ethyl lead, benzene and MTBE -- all of which are additives that are meant to raise octane levels."
4. Your own source has this to say about the renewability of Ethanol: "David Pimentel disputes that "ethanol production from corn" is a renewable energy source. However, Pimentel's studies have been widely discredited, and also fails to compare other viable sources of ethanol such as Sugar beets and Sugarcane."
Why didn't YOU address any of those salient points?
Excuse me, but I do believe that's what I'm doing. As I pointed out above and in other posts, you need to read your own sources in order to understand both sides of the issue. I have no problem with you having a bias, but your dismissivness of the counter-points has no place in an open discussion.
Have YOU? We burned 139 billion gallons of gasoline in 2004. A gallon of ethanol has the energy of about
1. I used your own figures in my counter-point. If you disagree with them, then don't provide them as the core of your argument.
2. You're also assuming that Corn is the only crop
Can you really sue a company for defrauding another company, neither of which you represent?
Difficult to say. In this case he may be able to argue that consumers were directly defrauded through the defrauding of the ESRB (a consumer protection agency of sorts). Whether he'll be successful or not is up to the judge to decide.
*sigh* I wish. Two words: Natural flavors.
One word: Spices
Drives me nuts. Its just a sneaky way of disguising their use of Monosodium Glutamate (MSG).
I think you misunderstand the argument. The content he's referring to would not be the solution of a Sherlock Holmes book, but rather that it's a mystery story that may involve investigations of murder, theft, personal relationships, and various other acts of criminal or personal nature. If Conan Doyle suddenly broke into a steamy scene indicitive of a cheap romance novel, you'd probably be yelling "What the [insert explicative]?!"
That being said, I can't think of any laws that force a publisher to give away even the basic plot, much less the overall content. The only recourse I can see this lawyer following is to prosecute Rockstar on allegations of fraud in relation to the rating they received from the ESRB.
Um.. not sure this is a question, but if there is such a thing as gravitons, what's up with einstein's curvature of space-time, and then, how come they could "escape" from black holes that easily?
Actually, that's a really good question. I don't know the answer (you might want to bring it up earlier next time the topic comes up so a few physicists can get in on this), but I'd imagine that gravitons don't affect gravitons. Thus the force of gravity would espcape a black hole.
As for relativity, I also have major reservations about the how Einstein describes gravity as a natural curve of the Universe vs. the discrete particle theory. However, most of Einsteins work has to do with the perspective of the viewer. e.g. If you travel at near light-speed, you won't see your actual speed, but the rest of the universe will seem to shrink around you. (Including the fourth dimension, time.) This is what's referred to as a space-time warp. (You can argue till you're blue in the face whether or not the universe actually warps or not. The answer will always be "depends on your frame of reference".) I imagine that similar logic was applied to the graviton theory in that the wash of particles makes a curvature appear in the same way that particles of H2O can produce a sinusoidal ripple effect. (i.e. The waves you get when you drop a stone in a pond.)
I'm disgusted that this has been modded up to 5 (despite at least one "overrated" mod), when the very next comment provided links to info and far more insightful and factual commentary.
:-P
I'm sorry, but why are you linking to him? He didn't provide any facts. He provided a few "go search for yourself" links, and was refuted by respondants. There's quite a bit of discussion regarding the viability of Ethanol as a fuel. Simply linking to some random poster and saying, "This guy is right!" does not resolve the issue. (Especially when he doesn't even refute anything I've said.)
Total from the whole corn crop (g'bye, Tony the Tiger and Corn Chex) and all that biomass would be 118 billion gallons/year. We burned 139 billion gallons of gasoline in 2004 (9,063,000 barrels/day), plus another 4 million bbl/day of distillate (diesel) and 1.6 million bbl/day of jet fuel. Ethanol isn't going to do the job no matter what, and hyping it as The Solution just because it isn't hydrogen is a huge mistake.
You've taken our total production and then proclaimed that Ethanol can't do the job. Question? Have you considered that we can increase our crop production? Amercian farmers produce far less crops than they could simply because there is an insufficient market. The government actually pays farmers to leave large swaths of fields bare. Now I've been operating under the understanding that we'd have to double our crop yeilds to produce enough Ethanol to meet the needs of fuel consumption, but let's go with your figures for a moment. Your figures show a 21 billion barrel deficit in the necessary number of barrels. Thus we need a 17.7% increase in the amount of Ethanol produced in order to meet the demand. Why do you see that as a problem?
The problem with ethanol is, ironically, that it is compatible with the existing vehicle fleet. That fleet has an average tank-to-wheels efficiency of 14.9%. Lead-acid batteries are about 70% efficient, Li-ion is closer to 95%. We are far better off going plug-in hybrid than wasting our money on ethanol.
Efficiency isn't the entire formula here. If it was just about efficieny, we'd all be driving electric cars. In fact, it's about range and fuel economy. It's about keeping the transportation system we have. Replacing our fuel infrastructure and our cars would be one of the most expensive replacements in history. No one wants to do it. No one wants to be forced to purchase a new vehicle, fuel station owners don't want to be forced to invest hundreds of thousands each in new pumps, and fuel producers don't want to invest billions (trillions?) in new hydrogen production technology. That's why Hydrogen isn't appealing. Ethanol can reuse most of that infrastructure with only fractional losses in energy density.
I agree with you that I'd like to see Hydrogen as the final solution, but a sudden shift just isn't going to happen.
BTW, there's fairly complete selection of papers on the Ethanol problem here. It's even helpfully divided into the papers showing figures against (amounts to mostly just Pimentel) and for (everyone else).
Moderators: when the parent is back down to 2, it's about where it ought to be.
Oh yeah? Mods! Mod parent up for providing links to interesting fuel consumption figures.
This is a discussion, not a war. Everyone has their position and their points to be made. The point is to mod up posts that are salient to the topic at hand.
Mod: QtElfASSASSINlord596 was kicked for violating the Terms of Service, section "Titles".
Taco: Rough, aren't they?
The neutrino is a particle, but can we shield against it?
Yes. Any sufficiently dense mass will completely shield against them. A less dense mass (like the Earth) is only partly successful in shielding against them. (They're so small, they keep missing.) Read the discussion above your post for more on this. Also feel free to Google for Neutrino capture experiments.
Any other questions?
Blech. This, "Most of the stuff is only dangerous for the first month or so." should read, "Most of the stuff that is dangerous, is only dangerous for the first month or so."
I hate to break it to ya, but at least one of the byproducts of nuclear power (Plutonium) isn't around in your backyard
No, but there's plenty of Uranium. Plutonium should be burned up rather than stored as waste.
It also happens to be one of the most toxic substances we know of
Bullshit. It doesn't rate even close. Let me ask you, which would you rather ingest: 20 grams of caffine or 20 grams of plutonium?
If you value your life, you'll go for the plutonium.
What happens if the US descends into anarchy as a result of a stock market crash 100 years from now? Still safe? We've still got to deal with the stuff. And keep guards on the storage sites.
Safe from what? Your overactive imagination about glowing mutant babies? Most of the stuff they (will) stick in Yucca Mountain isn't even dangerous enough to shield against. Most of the stuff is only dangerous for the first month or so. (Which will stay in cooling pools until it cools off anyway.) The only real danger posed by the spent fuel is if it makes its way into the water table. That could cause an increase (not an epidemic, mind you, an increase) in the cancer rates.
If you have a SPECIFIC concern, please share it with us and I'll be happy to refute it. Otherwise stop watching so many bad movies.
Although it is safe in normal operation, things can always go wrong, and they do. Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident could wipe out populations and make huge areas uninhanitable for decades.
While I agree with the latter part of your argument, the former part is incorrect. The worst nuclear accident in history (Chernobyl) failed to "wipe out" even the population of the local city. A total of 56 people have died to date, with an expected final death rate of 4,000 due to Chernobyl-related illnesses. There were about 1,800 documented cases of Thyroid cancer from the event. FAQ/Findings
Current radiation levels are actually lower than the natural background levels for areas like Norway. However, the higher content of radioisotopes in the soil makes it unwise to live there. Despite this, many residents have moved back into the area.
The Chernobyl event is quite comparable to the 5-day, 1952 London incident where 3,000 people died from coal pollution.
The radiation released by coal is not that significant, and blends into background levels.
It's not the radiation you should be concerned about. It's breathing the radioisotopes into your lungs and blood stream. Once there, the radioisotopes have a chance to do the MOST damage by hitting the soft tissues with direct doses of radiation. Normally your skin provides a great deal of protection, but large internal doses tend to circumvent that protection.
But the way it's handled is what makes nuclear power so dangerous, and that's the reason so many people oppose it.
The way it's handled is what makes coal so dangerous. That's the reason why so many people should be opposed to it.
From the University of Michigan: "Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning."
I think the results are clear. Coal is FAR more dangerous than nuclear.
Ships already have balast tanks that they fill as they burn fuel or hold less cargo weight to ride lower in the water.
:-)
Indeed. But ballast tanks add additional storage room and cannot entirely compensate.
As for putting reactors in ships, US Nuclear carriers are probably a start for anyone attempting to do this.
I can do you one better than that. Meet the good ship NS Savannah, a 595ft long, 22,000 ton merchant ship capable of cruising the oceans full of 8.5 kilotons of cargo at a blistering 21 knots. The ship was part of the Atoms for Peace campaign, and was intended to show off how Nuclear Power could change things forever. Unfortunately, the ship suffered from a few problems:
1) Her streamlined hull (designed more for showcasing purposes than realistic usage) made cargo loading difficult.
2) She needed nuclear facilities all to her own. This added significant expense that could have been marginalized by producing more than one ship.
3) Fuel was extremely cheap when she was constructed. Had the ship remained in service for a few more years, her costs would have been extremely competitive.
If we learn from these experiences, I (and many others) see absolutely no financial or technical reason why nuclear merchant ships cannot again enter service. Especially with the prices of petroleum being as high as they are now. In addition, the Navy's use of nuclear power (as you mentioned) has given us a tremendous amount of experience to draw from.
The only problem is that you need multiple fully trained nuclear technicians to watch the reactors. Hmm... Maybe they can get them from the navy when they retire.
In fact, this has been considered an excellent idea. Most other areas of the service already have this sort of option. For example, Navy pilots often go to work as civilian pilots after they complete their tour. Their experience means that they can command high wages in the civilian market. To date, naval operators are often forced to work as land based nuclear operators if they want the full benefit of their experience, a market that is constantly shrinking. Merchant plants would provide excellent jobs for these operators, as well as reduce the overall costs to merchant fleets.
The multi megawatt electric motors the US Navy is investing in testing/developing would help this a long way. (Electric drive allows for fewer reactors, as you don't need to dedicate one reactor per screw)
Electric drives are actually becoming quite common in the civilian market as well. The Queen Mary 2, for example, went for all-electric propulsors rather than the standard direct drive configuration. This allowed her to mount two directed thrust propulsors in addition to two fixed propulsors.
In any case, multiple screws can provide more maneuverability, but are not an outright requirement. The NS Savannah only had a single screw through which to direct the entirity of her 74MW of power. AFAIK, this was never a major issue.
Don't forget that as a bonus, more PU-238 becomes available for use in Space Probes and other radioisotope thermal generator applications. Once the Pu-239 is burned up in the reactors, the remaining Tritium, Strontium, Cesium, Americanium, and other materials can then be divied up and resold for medical and industrial use.
Second, corrupt, incompotence, and lack of over sight. Check out the nuclear energy system in France. It's heavily governed, has strict regulation, design requirements, etc... In the US we have reactors that are in use beyond their expected life, storing significantly more spent fuel then designed, cutting corners on down time, bribing inspectors, and of all different designs and natures.
In analyzing this point, it's very important to ask the question, "Why is the system this way?" The answer is quite simple: Almost no nuclear reactors have been built since the 80's. The last one was made operational in 1996, ten years ago. This situation is caused by the politcial football that Nuclear Power has become. Any new nuclear plants must face thousands of regulatory issues, environmentalist protests, impact statements, and political resistance. The resistance is so high to opening new plants, that the cost and time required to open a new plant makes it impossible.
Meanwhile, plant operators struggle to keep their existing plants online well past their expected lifetimes. Nuclear Plants continue to close left and right, and it is only slightly less problematic to replace them with dirty coal fired plants. One way or another energy producers are losing. Demand continues to rise while generating capacity lags behind. Someone has GOT to shove through the cruft and make it profitable again to open power plants. Unless that happens, Americans will not see any new nuclear power, especially not safe nuclear power.
Seems to me more that [Bush] is being practical instead of making emotional decisions.
I think the grandparent was trying to be sarcastic toward the great-grandparent's post. i.e. He agrees with you.
It is about high time countries started giving serious attention to nuclear energy as an option and the research required to make it safe and effective.
Indeed. In fact, if a solution could be found to protecting reactors against high-seas piracy, I'd love to see our merchant ships switch over from fossil fuels. I mean, these big suckers burn through gallons of fuel per foot, and burn some of the dirtiest crap left over from the petroleum distillation processes. In addition, these fuels take up a significant chunk of the ships' cargo capacity, meaning that more trips are needed to carry the same amount of cargo as a nuclear powered ship. This also means that the ships can be made safer as they won't rise in the water so high as they burn through the fuel. Rather, they'll stay at the same low-level throughout their entire trip, ensuring that the ship is kept stable even in poor weather.