Different people have different habits. When I sit down to watch "The Office" I change to that channel then put the remote down until the credits when I change to CBS to watch "CSI". I don't flip channels because I'm not interested in seeing 2 minutes of another show or 2 minutes of commercials on another channel.
Also people are lazy and have been lazy since the invent of the fast forward button which other point out was long ago not just with the DVR. I know my parents mostly forget to fast forward through comercials and they've had a DVR for almost a year now. Even my tech savy friend that has a DVR won't fast forward even when he sees an add for Christmas when it is May. TV viewing is a time to relax and not a time to sit there with the remote in hand just waiting for the next commercial to fast forward through.
From the story:
"About 95% of all broadcast prime-time DVR viewing is done within three days of the live telecast, according to Nielsen."
Either Nielsen doesn't know people like you or you are part of the 5%.
Actually, the story told in Jericho comes from Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, and according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe) he did say "shit" but it was cleaned up before sending it to the Germans.
Using Fossil Fuels mined domestically is a good argument for national security as was the start of this thread. The most used resource in producing Ethanol is Coal which the US has more of then any Nation in the world. I don't endorse the use of coal but I'm assuming much of this is coming from electricity that could use other cleaner sources. You also keep repeating your net energy loss statement which is referring to the one source from Tad Patzek that others have pointed to as using Solar Energy to grow the plants as a net loss. I can show you two independent sources (US Department of Energy and Berkeley) that show a net energy gain from corn based ethanol, while I have only ever seen this one report from Tad Patzek that reports a net loss. I would love to see another report that is not derived from Tad Patzek that shows a net loss.
As toward you EPA link that only addresses FFV (Flex Fuel Vehicles) which as I said they are less efficent then gasoline only vehicles. I'm not even sure why you gave me a link that agreed with me. Here is a link that will show you of an example where a gasoline vehicle was converted to a E85 only vehicle that produced more power, and less emissions while still getting a higher MPG. http://www.engr.unl.edu/~ethanol/unl2000.pdf
I'm sorry you live in a place with no wind. It must be hell.
I just want to know why people continue to believe these myth and seem to accept them so easily. Is it because you believe in the war so much that you don't want to accept that there is other alternatives out there that would have meant that the war is even meaningless then is already is? Do you have some investment in oil? Are you already driving an electric (and I don't mean Hybrid) or Hydrogen car? Do you truly believe that we will never run out of oil or that it's not changing the environment? Did the Catholic church tell you that it was a sin to believe there is an alternative? Did the Scientologist tell you that aliens would abduct you if you don't believe? I truly don't understand your reasonings. I can explain some of mine to be bias towards ethanol. I grew up in Kansas where my parents are still supported by the corn farmers that used to struggle when it was just a food crop. I also think that 80% of the reason why we went to Iraq was because of their oil which is also the reason they don't want us there. Now please explain to me some of your bias.
We are NOT using a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon (of less then a gallon if you believe the FUD) of ethanol. Not all energy in the world comes from petroleum. Most of the fuel used to produce Ethanol comes from Coal or Natural Gas. http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/summary.html
Your other statement about fuel mileage is also inaccurate. Yes ethanol has less energy per unit then petroleum but it also has a higher octane. For those not understanding octane, this means the fuel can withstand higher pressures before being ignited giving it an efficiency boost(think turbo or super charger). My understanding is an ethanol engine can be toned to have the same gas mileage as as gasoline engine. The reason why flex fuel cars get the lower mpg is because they are toned for gasoline and not ethanol.
I'll try to quickly address your other FUD. The production of ethanol involves growing plants which reduce smog and CO2 while the production of gasoline only produces smog while never contributing to the reduction of it, that is simple common knowledge that you don't need a PHD to understand. As many have said corn prices are influenced by other things and 60% of the bi product of ethanol production can be used as feed for livestock. We don't need to retrofit or replace engines to handle ethanol because gasoline is not going away in any near future. Gasoline engines will be replaced when they die of old age and then replaced by a new cars that can handle ethanol or other biofuels. Do you have anymore FUD that you've been swallowing from Big Oil without researching?
Some people should be shot for the FUD they post. As somebody else posted the report you linked to is from one professor that used decades old data to come up with his numbers. You probably should have atleast posted the link to the real report instead of a news report where the Media just hunts for the most striking headline.
Or if you continue to believe that the agriculture buisness has more pull then Big Oil then check out this report from UC Berkeley that says it has a 1.30 ratio of return from corn crops: http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/summary.html
I don't think the corn ethanol is the fuel of the future. But I think it is a stepping stone in the correct direction towards other alternatives like Algae or Switch grass which is cheaper, easier to grow, and produces many more gallons per acre. Corn based ethanol will first establish the infrastructure for ethanol then these better alternatives will hopefully take over.
Slashdot Mirror
Different people have different habits. When I sit down to watch "The Office" I change to that channel then put the remote down until the credits when I change to CBS to watch "CSI". I don't flip channels because I'm not interested in seeing 2 minutes of another show or 2 minutes of commercials on another channel.
Also people are lazy and have been lazy since the invent of the fast forward button which other point out was long ago not just with the DVR. I know my parents mostly forget to fast forward through comercials and they've had a DVR for almost a year now. Even my tech savy friend that has a DVR won't fast forward even when he sees an add for Christmas when it is May. TV viewing is a time to relax and not a time to sit there with the remote in hand just waiting for the next commercial to fast forward through.
From the story: "About 95% of all broadcast prime-time DVR viewing is done within three days of the live telecast, according to Nielsen." Either Nielsen doesn't know people like you or you are part of the 5%.
Actually, the story told in Jericho comes from Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, and according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe) he did say "shit" but it was cleaned up before sending it to the Germans.
Using Fossil Fuels mined domestically is a good argument for national security as was the start of this thread. The most used resource in producing Ethanol is Coal which the US has more of then any Nation in the world. I don't endorse the use of coal but I'm assuming much of this is coming from electricity that could use other cleaner sources. You also keep repeating your net energy loss statement which is referring to the one source from Tad Patzek that others have pointed to as using Solar Energy to grow the plants as a net loss. I can show you two independent sources (US Department of Energy and Berkeley) that show a net energy gain from corn based ethanol, while I have only ever seen this one report from Tad Patzek that reports a net loss. I would love to see another report that is not derived from Tad Patzek that shows a net loss.
As toward you EPA link that only addresses FFV (Flex Fuel Vehicles) which as I said they are less efficent then gasoline only vehicles. I'm not even sure why you gave me a link that agreed with me. Here is a link that will show you of an example where a gasoline vehicle was converted to a E85 only vehicle that produced more power, and less emissions while still getting a higher MPG. http://www.engr.unl.edu/~ethanol/unl2000.pdf
I'm sorry you live in a place with no wind. It must be hell.
I just want to know why people continue to believe these myth and seem to accept them so easily. Is it because you believe in the war so much that you don't want to accept that there is other alternatives out there that would have meant that the war is even meaningless then is already is? Do you have some investment in oil? Are you already driving an electric (and I don't mean Hybrid) or Hydrogen car? Do you truly believe that we will never run out of oil or that it's not changing the environment? Did the Catholic church tell you that it was a sin to believe there is an alternative? Did the Scientologist tell you that aliens would abduct you if you don't believe? I truly don't understand your reasonings. I can explain some of mine to be bias towards ethanol. I grew up in Kansas where my parents are still supported by the corn farmers that used to struggle when it was just a food crop. I also think that 80% of the reason why we went to Iraq was because of their oil which is also the reason they don't want us there. Now please explain to me some of your bias.
We are NOT using a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon (of less then a gallon if you believe the FUD) of ethanol. Not all energy in the world comes from petroleum. Most of the fuel used to produce Ethanol comes from Coal or Natural Gas. http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/summary.html Your other statement about fuel mileage is also inaccurate. Yes ethanol has less energy per unit then petroleum but it also has a higher octane. For those not understanding octane, this means the fuel can withstand higher pressures before being ignited giving it an efficiency boost(think turbo or super charger). My understanding is an ethanol engine can be toned to have the same gas mileage as as gasoline engine. The reason why flex fuel cars get the lower mpg is because they are toned for gasoline and not ethanol. I'll try to quickly address your other FUD. The production of ethanol involves growing plants which reduce smog and CO2 while the production of gasoline only produces smog while never contributing to the reduction of it, that is simple common knowledge that you don't need a PHD to understand. As many have said corn prices are influenced by other things and 60% of the bi product of ethanol production can be used as feed for livestock. We don't need to retrofit or replace engines to handle ethanol because gasoline is not going away in any near future. Gasoline engines will be replaced when they die of old age and then replaced by a new cars that can handle ethanol or other biofuels. Do you have anymore FUD that you've been swallowing from Big Oil without researching?
Some people should be shot for the FUD they post. As somebody else posted the report you linked to is from one professor that used decades old data to come up with his numbers. You probably should have atleast posted the link to the real report instead of a news report where the Media just hunts for the most striking headline.
l ance.html
I can at least point you to reports from our own government that say there is a 1.34 ratio of return from corn crops:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/net_energy_ba
Or if you continue to believe that the agriculture buisness has more pull then Big Oil then check out this report from UC Berkeley that says it has a 1.30 ratio of return from corn crops:
http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/summary.html
I don't think the corn ethanol is the fuel of the future. But I think it is a stepping stone in the correct direction towards other alternatives like Algae or Switch grass which is cheaper, easier to grow, and produces many more gallons per acre. Corn based ethanol will first establish the infrastructure for ethanol then these better alternatives will hopefully take over.