If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Joe Pfeiffer on November 9, 2009, 9:45 am
show/hide quoted text
> "RickH" wrote:
>> At first people said ethanol was a net energy
>> saver too. But after a similar analysis (like
>> including the manufacturing chain above in
>> total cost) it is now well-agreed that E85 uses
>> more energy to get that gallon to the pump
>> than the gasoline in the next pump.
> Ethanol may not be a net energy saver but it does reduce dependance on
> middle eastern oil. That, IMO, is a good thing.
> I spend a lot of time in Brazil, where my car and my motorcycle run on
> a mix of gasoline and alcohol (made from cheap sugar cane; not
> overpriced corn sugar). The cost is less than straight gasoline and
> milage is not significantly different. The Brazilian government-owned
> oil comany, Petrobras, claims that production costs -- both financial
> and environmental -- of ethanol are very close to those for gasoline.
Ethanol may be a good idea, but not as the US has pursued it. Sugar
cane is a good choice; corn is a lousy choice. Remember the fertilizer
comes from middle eastern oil... it takes a lot of effort to show a net
benefit on that one.
Algae is looking *very* promising, as a better US approach.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
|
|
Posted by Robert L Bass on November 9, 2009, 3:03 pm
"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Ethanol may be a good idea, but not as the US has pursued
> it. Sugar cane is a good choice; corn is a lousy choice.
> Remember the fertilizer comes from middle eastern oil...
We got a lot of fertilizer out of the previous administration as well. :^)
The problem with ethanol is the US sugar industry. More specifically, the
complex relationship between agribusiness and the US government makes progress
almost impossible.
There is a false premise that many in Congress claim we are supporting "free
market" enterprise. In a truly free market we would be importing Brazilian
sugar by the boatload. That would bring the cost down at the pump *and* reduce
our dependence on middle-eastern oil.
|
|
Posted by Josepi on November 9, 2009, 4:15 pm
Why not just lower the world barrel price of petroleum instead of trying to
avoid the high prices the middle east charges?
Me thinks the price is set by many Americans in the quest for richness. Why
blame somebody else?
show/hide quoted text
> "Joe Pfeiffer" wrote:
>> Ethanol may be a good idea, but not as the US has pursued
>> it. Sugar cane is a good choice; corn is a lousy choice.
>> Remember the fertilizer comes from middle eastern oil...
> We got a lot of fertilizer out of the previous administration as well.
> :^)
> The problem with ethanol is the US sugar industry. More specifically, the
> complex relationship between agribusiness and the US government makes
> progress almost impossible.
> There is a false premise that many in Congress claim we are supporting
> "free market" enterprise. In a truly free market we would be importing
> Brazilian sugar by the boatload. That would bring the cost down at the
> pump *and* reduce our dependence on middle-eastern oil.
>
|
|
Posted by Robert L Bass on November 7, 2009, 2:00 am
Without Provocation, "Dave Houston" spat the following trash on the floor:
show/hide quoted text
> Anyone concerned about the standby power has
> succumbed to the mumbo-jumbo disinformation
> from nitwits like Bass & Hult.
I never said anything about PC standby power. I have disagreed with you on
several issues and that has caused you to attack me personally on various
occasions like this one. Once when you complained on your website about
health-related financial issues I even tried to offer you help. Your response
was to attack me publicly and accuse me of trying to steal whatever it was you
were working on. You're a real case, Houston.
Mr. Hult has repeatedly shown you to be wrong on numerous issues. Your response
is the same -- attack personally because you haven't the ability to win a debate
on the merits.
show/hide quoted text
> According to the DOE, 9% of residential electricity went
> for lighting (a couple of years back). Residential use is
> about 1/3 of total use so that means residential lighting...
All of that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. The issue being
considered was web enabled temperature and humidity monitoring. This has since
morphed into a discussion on booting a PC via the Internet or a LAN.
show/hide quoted text
> ... So all those folks who installed CFLs have been on a
> fool's errand...
According to Mr. Houston, any attempt at reducing electrical usage is a "fool's
errand" unless it's controlled by X10 (private joke).
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
show/hide quoted text
==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
show/hide quoted text
==============================>
|
|
Posted by Jules on November 6, 2009, 1:54 pm
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:10:29 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> But they also have a switch on the back which is "truly off". What the
> OP is looking for would end up being the equivalent of hitting that
> switch.
One gotcha I found with one of my home systems is that WOL doesn't work if
the power's been off (power cut, breaker, 'hard' switch on the back of the
PSU etc.) - the first time after a total power-off I need to hit the
switch on the front of the machine; it won't respond to WOL events. Once
it's been on via the front switch once, shutdown-WOL cycles work normally.
I'm not sure if that's a widespread problem (or even a goofy intentional
'feature'), or if I've just got crap firmware :-)
cheers
Jules
|
Page 11 of 17 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | OT: an efficient AC controller | June 6, 2006, 10:10 pm |
| Electronic Controller Repair | October 10, 2005, 10:16 pm |
| Richdel 476 Irrigation controller | November 5, 2005, 8:26 am |
| Smart attic fan controller ? | August 27, 2006, 2:24 pm |
| OT How to connect a Brake Controller | March 17, 2007, 4:08 am |
| Looking for a hot-water tank controller | June 22, 2007, 12:08 am |
| Oil burner controller system | January 18, 2008, 7:14 pm |
| Furnaced controller problem | October 15, 2009, 10:44 pm |
| Resetting controller on Ariston dishwasher | February 6, 2005, 6:54 am |
| Landscape Lighting Controller Installation | November 9, 2005, 2:27 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>> At first people said ethanol was a net energy
>> saver too. But after a similar analysis (like
>> including the manufacturing chain above in
>> total cost) it is now well-agreed that E85 uses
>> more energy to get that gallon to the pump
>> than the gasoline in the next pump.
> Ethanol may not be a net energy saver but it does reduce dependance on
> middle eastern oil. That, IMO, is a good thing.
> I spend a lot of time in Brazil, where my car and my motorcycle run on
> a mix of gasoline and alcohol (made from cheap sugar cane; not
> overpriced corn sugar). The cost is less than straight gasoline and
> milage is not significantly different. The Brazilian government-owned
> oil comany, Petrobras, claims that production costs -- both financial
> and environmental -- of ethanol are very close to those for gasoline.