Max value of a UShort is 65,535.
Printable View
Max value of a UShort is 65,535.
This year has certainly taken its toll on me. I just found out that one of my very good friends nearly drowned and is suffering right now... unfortunately her dad did not make it.
https://www.gofundme.com/2snq2bg
I have some signed shorts....but that's a different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
I'm astonished to say that I hadn't even heard of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9
Sandpoints an interesting place. It's kind of a mix of rich, crunchy-granola, types....and aryan nations types. This state is pretty conservative/libertarian, and doesn't seem like a place that would embrace alternative energy...yet we actually are, bit by bit. There's a fair amount of work in solar in the state, though mostly down around Boise. I can't say I'm surprised to hear that a solar roadway project is starting in this state, considering all the other solar infrastructure development, but I am surprised at the location.
That's some rough news.Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9
I've been donating to a friend of mine who had a massive stroke this spring. He's actually the guy who replaced me in my last job (an internal move on both of our parts). He's not all that old and has a young daughter who was old enough to understand that something bad happened to her father, but probably not old enough to fully understand what happened. His minds there, but part of his lower brain was removed, which has left him with motor control issues. Fortunately, those are things that the brain tends to be able to work around. I gave him a tablet on Friday so that he could use it as an e-book reader, cause he can read ok. Unfortunately, he's right on the edge of being able to use the thing because of the motor control issues.
Life: It ain't permanent, so don't get too used to it.
While I'm sure some conservative/libertarians are partisan to oil due to ties with money(look at the entire state of Louisiana), I find that the majority in both parties are for alternative energy only with different outlooks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Liberals feel as though a move to alternative energy is imperative due to climate change induced by human activity, in particular the use of oil based products. Conservatives feel as though a move to alternative energy would be nice so long as it doesn't cost more than existing technology. Libertarians feel as though it doesn't matter which energy source you use, just don't encroach on any personal freedoms.
A fair statement of the position. However, what often gets lost in the more emotional side of the argument is the economics of the whole thing. There are people who want to be green because it's the liberal thing to do, and people who oppose green because it's the conservative thing to do. What can get overlooked is that alternative energy necessarily means innovation, and technological innovation is always an economic positive, even if it doesn't change the world. Do it right and going green is good for everybody. That's pretty much what is driving this state.
On the other side of it, we have a fair amount of hydro power, which is such a cheap source of electricity that it's a near thing whether going solar makes sense here, despite living in a desert. Our electricity is already some of the cheapest in the country, which makes the payoff equation for solar a lot tougher.
I'm on the side of keep moving it forward and hoping it turns into something fruitful.
Yeah i think that often gets overlooked, probably the single best thing about so called green energy sources is they are based upon technology which by its very nature is innovative and improves year on year. Solar is much much more cost effective and far better at capturing energy then it was when it first came about, as is wind energy.Quote:
What can get overlooked is that alternative energy necessarily means innovation, and technological innovation is always an economic positive
There has been studies in the UK which show that if you removed all subsidies (as oil and gas are subsidised industries too) then there is very little difference in the cost, and solar and wind get cheaper the more you install, and as we innovate for the next generation of the technology they get even more efficient.
Forget about the politics around it from a purely tech perspective it just makes sense to invest in it and make it part of the energy mix.
62012
Quite true, but as you note, politics plays too big a part of it. There are cons to solar and wind, as well as hydro, which are downplayed, and the hydrocarbon resource has benefits. There are places where solar, wind, hydro, and oil can all live together and be part of the total energy solution. But there will be areas in the world where some of those are simply not viable.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Then you have some special kind of stupid when you see crack pots holding up some African village completely dependent on a wind mill and a solar cell with no oil usage as if this is a demonstration of how the west has 'failed' in our dependency on oil.
I read an article a while back where an African guy learned to power his village using wind mill technology from reading books in a library that was donated.
The main downside to renewable is generally consistency of supply, the clever energy storage technology that is currently being developed though can mitigate many of those issues.Quote:
Quite true, but as you note, politics plays too big a part of it. There are cons to solar and wind, as well as hydro, which are downplayed, and the hydrocarbon resource has benefits. There are places where solar, wind, hydro, and oil can all live together and be part of the total energy solution. But there will be areas in the world where some of those are simply not viable.
The main benefit of hydrocarbon resources have tended to be price, and if you were a country with a lot of oil, then you had security of supply. However there are not that many countries that have a huge supply of oil or gas left.
On an even more political note, what do y'all think about Julian Assange set to release all of these documents about both candidates and Google?
I feel kind of neutral about it, I could really careless.
The Apple iSolar?Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9
Hydro often doesn't live so well with the others simply because hydro can be so much cheaper that it can outcompete the others. The cheapest electricity in this country is the TVA region followed by the Columbia River basin, the two largest hydro developed areas. Wind and solar have to be subsidized to be in the mix, though that is improving as energy demands exceed the ability of the hydro system to provide, since the hydro system won't be expanding....without technological improvements, but even that's coming. River run hydro could change the whole energy landscape.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
I will gladly pay a 200% markup to have Apple's solar technology :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Hasn't he been droned?Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9
I didn't really mean that they are all necessarily in the same locale, but used where it makes sense, and it isn't about the cost of each, necessarily. They are sold as pure 'competitors' to traditional mechanisms, and as alternatives; this is just the wrong word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I think that a lot of people miss the boat on hydroelectric power - it's not a primarily energy producer, but a battery (non-river systems). bringing wind and a hydro-dam together, excess wind energy could be stored in the reservoir.
As a side note, does anyone drive a vehicle with e85 capability, and use e85? It's still not quite cheap enough to be economical, for me (gas at 2.20, E85 at 1.70).
I don't think it is sufficiently widespread, either. I can't think of a single e85 station in this area. There doubtless are some, I just haven't visited or noticed them.
We have 1 in my town, I think it is because of all the refineries, but my wife's father owns a Lincoln Navigator that can take e85 and he tells me that it is not worth it. With the amount of times he has to refill he comes out better using regular unleaded.
I will be in Houston, TX. tonight until Saturday if any of y'all'll be there.
It's a small town, you might all bump into each other.
Ethanol just doesn't have the energy density of gasoline. I use an alcohol stove while hiking (it weighs 1.1 oz). I use either denatured alcohol, or methanol....well, ok, I use denatured alcohol because that's what I find most often. The flame is often invisible, but the heat is such that it takes longer to boil water than with white gas (napthalene, I think) or the butane/propane mixes lots of people use. It's also the most expensive fuel on the market, by far, and it won't burn at all if the stove is resting directly on snow.
So, I'm not surprised that E85 isn't worth it.
In the other direction, we have a few ethanol-free stations. The prices for that stuff are jacked up so high that it can't possibly be cost effective. I'm not sure who is buying it, but they are paying a premium for it. Therefore, I expect the only buyers are those who have some kind of finicky luxury car, or they are cranks and curmudgeons.
We have several ethanol-free stations and I don't find the markup too bad. In fact, right now I'd say that the average $/gallon is $1.80 and for ethanol-free it's maybe $1.99. Even when gas was reaching $4/gallon the ethanol-free barely broke $4/gallon.
My new (to me) E250 van takes E85, my Mustang specifically says "NO E85" on the gas cap and both my motorcycles are premium (91+ octane) fuel only.
Like Shaggy I know of no E85 stations nearby and even if I did I wouldn't use it as my new van is dog slow and underpowered as it is and pulling a race trailer is tough enough. Obama's changes in the CAFE standards no longer exempt work trucks and effectively killed off the Triton V8 and V10 truck engines as well as the good old reliable Econoline vans.
In the old days Indy cars burned methanol and it was cool to watch an engine fire melt the cowl with no visible flame.
Or kart/dirtbike racers who get tested for fuel additives. Years ago a bunch of my kart racing buddies would run their KT100 engines on Amoco 93 Ultra, but shortly after BP took over Amoco they began to get DQ'd for alcohol in their fuel as BP didn't feel the need to inform their customers of the switch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
What do they have against booze?
I would have thought that the ethanol lowered performance. So what's the real story?
It certainly lowers mine. Although I could probably blame that on age too.Quote:
I would have thought that the ethanol lowered performance.
To me, E85 had little impact on performance (a suburban) just lower economy. I do think it's a bit foolish to use ethanol, but dollars are dollars.
Trucks will still be viable with the new steels coming out. But its viable for the big three, by charging much more to retain profits. Maybe fewer, but higher cost, trucks. Thats why Ford is moving the grot-box manufacture to Mexico. Cheapy cheap cheap; sell more high economy junkers; sell more profitable trucks and SUVs.
Could you imagine the irony in a 40% tariff against the auto industry? The irony is that foreign auto makers like Toyota would not be affected, it would be Ford that would get the biggest hit!
There's no irony; they make them out of aluminum, now...
I thought that they manufactured their vehicles in Mexico?
Rules is rules. No additives allowed, even alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
My Ford van was built in Avon Lake, Ohio and my Mustang was built in Flat Rock, Michigan.Quote:
I thought that they manufactured their vehicles in Mexico?
Well, I got it...Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
I've known 'em to end up in lakes, but never come from one.Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
Just when I thought 2016 couldn't get any worse... my wife's parrain died last night in a motorcycle accident.
Ummm, that sounds bad, but what's a parrain?
Godfather. It holds a lot more significance in South Louisiana.
It is also her uncle too.