Whatever the cost is, it either comes out of advertising and cable revenues or is subsidized by government. Your demographic is weak for advertisers, nonexistent for cable providers.Not really, and, I'd suspect continuing OTA broadcast that is the same as your local cable providers bundle into basic local is part of their spectrum leases from the government.
There's also still a lot more OTA consumers than you'd think, typically at either the poorer, older ends of the viewership as well as those who just don't spend the time in front of the TV to justify $80 a month on cable
There's a difference in terminology here that I think is relevant. There are 'sustainable' or 'renewable' fuels.
And then there are the so-called 'carbon-neutral' fuels.
These folks change terms; "Sustainable" doesn't mean what we think it means.I finally caught up to this post. I usually refer to either "renewable fuels" or "biofuels." Neither is specific enough.
Strictly speaking I suppose I should start referring to "sustainable carbon-neutral fuels," since that's what I generally mean. But it's too much of a mouthful.
And I'm generally assuming one more qualifier: "that can be produced at commercial volumes on a par with the fossil fuels they replace." That makes it even more of a mouthful.
When the new ford electric truck gets 80 miles with a trailer? No problem there.There's a fun thread up about some idiot in NJ with a "deleted" diesel Ram. Meanwhile, at the other end of the continent ....
As usual they're touting benefits that are hard to argue against, and as usual I'd love to know how it's supposed to work in actual reality.
GBodyForum is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.