Fan in Chicago

Unbelievably great game.

Yea I only work till noon tomorrow so trust me I will be glued to the set at 2 pm (CST). Wish this is broadcast in HD, DTV gives me CNBC in only SD (idiots) And, Slovakia ???

If a US-Canada play for the gold, can you imagine the hysteria in Canada ? Go US & Canada !!!

I work half day Fridays !! Yee-ha ! Is 2 pm too early to start drinking ?

Congratulations !!! The fact that you acknowledged you had a problem, figured out a solution and stuck to it is very very commendable. It is a lifetime of a fight but well worth it.

Can't wait for this game. Will be cheering for Team Canada, it being by second favorite team. Missed the US-Sui game due to the stupid scheduling, so disappointing. Atleast glad we won.

In which case, my question is why do we need the box ? The PV will produce electricity which can be directly used in the homes. And Nervous Guy, I didn't understand the Mr. Peabody comment (he isn't associated with energy so I know squat about the reference )

In the articles or my explanations ? Care to elaborate ?

My responses themselves are an elaboration. I can understand that if a device is very efficient (i.e. it uses less input energy to produce the same output heat), then the carbon emissions compared to a boiler are going to be lower. But the article said 'close to zero emissions'. Even if you halve the emissions from a natural gas fired boiler, it will be nowhere close to zero. The study you quoted claims 60% lower emissions - a vastly different claim than the 'close to zero' in the article I was responding to. In any case, natural gas heaters made post 1992 are more than 80% efficient. Even those prior to 1992 were 65% efficient. How can anything get twice this efficiency ? As for the solar energy part - I am confused about what you are trying to say. The article I read claims the device can be fed natural gas, biogas or can be infused with solar energy to produce electricity. That is what I was responding to. What did I say that appears to be a 'jump' ? Also, how does the article about fuel cells relate to my argument against this device being able to somehow run on solar. To quote the material from your link, "A fuel cell is a device that converts chemical energy directly into electrical energy." Where does solar come in the picture ?

This game will rock. Pity the US is playing an afternoon game with me having no access to a TV at work.

Thanx for the article and it is a decent read. But it is high on hype and low on technical content which I believe should always precede attempts to play up a new technology. In this specific case, if any generator takes in a carbon based fuel, whether fossil based or biogas, that carbon has to come out somewhere. Carbon Capture and Sequestering (CCS) technologies even on an industrial scale are very very expensive. We all would like to feed a carbon based source and then have nice and neat blocks of carbon coming out the back end. But unfortunately it is not that easy. Secondly, what the heck is 'infusing .... with solar energy' ? So you stick this in the sun and it generates electricity ? All solar panel developers might as well find a new job. Alternately, if you have to have an array of photovoltaic cells to feed this box, what is this box doing between those arrays and your home appliances anyway ? I am skeptical because from an engineering and science perspective, the claims made do not make sense.

having been in some form of energy industry myself for 19 years, I speak with some measure of authority. While I don't understand each and every aspect of energy and technology, I can certainly comment knowledgeably. Having said that, I mainly disagree with the word phrase 'game changer' with respect to this concept. It is a neat concept and certainly can have good potential applications. But it should not be marketed as a solution to either our energy or emission problems.

And that is why I can't see this as a game changer. If we can develop an efficient method of producing biogas - that would be a small game changer. I think while the idea of distributed power is great, they serve a different purpose than what is a critical need - producing alternative fuels or energy sources that reduce environmental impact in totality (well to wheels analogy). In the medium term, sources such as solar, wind and biogas can be used to produce electricity. This electricity can then be used for electric cars. The elements that make this scenario happen need a lot of work - development of said sources, smart electric grid and better battery technology. Anyway, I am veering away from the subject of the OP.

If I understand this correctly, this box takes in a fossil source (natural gas) and converts it to electricity which makes this a generator. Instead of using diesel, it uses natural gas. How can this be a game changer ? The only thing this box does is reduce the energy loss typically taking place in the electricity grid. A game changer would be a revolutionary source of energy which this is not.

I disagree on several aspects, except on the photography part which is very good. Production value is also excellent.

Wish Marv had taken his own advice and stayed retired

AS is one of the most reliable, dedicated, selfless, productive and veteran players on this team. We should talk him out of retirement and sure as hell not trade or cut him.

Frankly, I am stunned that anyone would be making a case for the Bills to draft yet another DB in the top 10. And that is all I have to say on this topic. Carry on ...

Not necessarily but DBs may be more than adequate. However, we need to shore up the positions we are miserable at rather than improve an already decent squad. The offense & run defense need to be brought up to some measure of respectability first before we start bolstering other areas.

I don't agree. In this draft, would you draft a WR, DB or RB if a player at that position is best available ? Your philosophy would make sense for a team that has been consistently drafting well and is indifferent to positional needs. We have so many critical needs on the lines and at the QB position that we cannot afford to blindly go best-available.

I did. Initially I was happy with the movie but left with a nagging sense of 'something is not right' Spoilers below

It seems like there is always this hopeful outlook before the season, regarding the OL. I was skeptical last year and even more so this year. First of all, I am not sure how he will come back from injury and even if he comes back 100%, there is no way to know how good a LT he will be. I, for one, am not willing to risk yet another season on hopes and prayers. Drafting or acquiring two tackles is a minimum for this off season.

If you are confident of Buffalo being able to revive such QBs, might as well try it on Trent Edwards.

I agree totally. Have not been a TE fan, but I see no problem in giving him a fair chance with the new regime.

Did not time myself but probably took 30-40 seconds to figure it out. Now that I have, I will proclaim that only people over 150 IQ can solve it in less than 40 seconds.