HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:01:22 GMT

In article <53037@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>[...] it is factually incorrect to argue that opposition
>to nuclear power is a symptom of hatred of science and technology or that
>the anti-nuclear movement is created by and kept alive by some machiavellian
>plot. 

I don't recall anyone saying this.  I've argued that *some* anti-nuclear 
protestors are motivated by fear of technology, and that *some* spokesmen
might be corrupt.  

>I note that it requires a certain willful ignorance to claim that
>either George Kendall or Lovins is anti-scientific 

"Every reactor in the U.S. is a Chernobyl waiting to happen."

                                                    -- Amory Lovins.

Lovins is not anti-scientific; he's frequently *un*scientific, as this 
quote illustrates.

>or against technology.

"[Soft energy systems] are ...relatively low technology...easy to understand
and use..."

	                                            -- Amory Lovins.
    

Lovins is not anti-technology; he's anti-high-technology.  (his obvious
ignorance of the high-tech nature of "soft" energy systems notwithstanding).

>Furthermore, it is at best spectacularly naive to argue that the
>anti-nuclear side is the sole source of the vast amounts of nonsense
>and outright lying present in this debate.

No one said this, except you.  I would venture that it takes a certain
willful ignorance to miss the basic points being made here, and bring the
debate down to the level of "is not, is so, is not..." and "I know you are
but what am I...".
 
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu


-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  -
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:47:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

HS>However, the level of technology involved in fabricating an efficient,
HS>300 KW, solid state cyclo-converter that would fit in the trunk of my
HS>car would bring a few whistles of disbelief from Enrico Fermi, if he
HS>were still around.

"Whistles of disbelief"??? Make that "whistles of amazement". Some times
I get carried away with my own poetry. Ha!

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . We all live in a yellow subroutine.
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:05:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmt.1992Sep12.220549.14317
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Sep12.193225.27592@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:

>I've always been taught and read that solar power is too inefficient to
>be used as a power source beyond subsidization of other power.

	This depends on what your application is.  For anywhere in the
lower 48,  it is more economical to build a new house to use passive solar
than it is to install a new oil, gas or coal furnace and to fuel it for
20 years.  Passive solar conversions would turn a net profit for many
existing homes,  but the investment is rather large.

	Solar hot water heaters are also gaining in popularity here in
New Mexico.  In some neighborhoods,  I've noticed that almost half of
the houses are so equipped.  As the technology improves,  it becomes more
and more practical in less favorable climates.  Solar hot water systems
can work in places like Massachusetts,  but the cost of the system is
more since one needs a larger,  better-insulated tank to hold over periods
with no sun,  and typically more collector area (so you can heat that tank
up very quickly when you ~do~ get sun).

>	I'm also aware that it's quite cost-inefficient.
>
>Can anyone change my viewpoint? 

	I think that you're specifically talking about the generation of
electricity from solar,  which is still an embryonic technology.  You
are partially right about it being inefficient,  but the technology ~is~
improving and has plenty of room to improve.  Existing solar thermal
systems that use natural gas backup generate electricity for 8 cents/kWh,
whereas TI claims that decentralized applications (potentially rooftop)
of it's Spheral Solar technology can beat 5 cents/kWh,  and I believe
that Spheral Solar has about an 8%-10% conversion efficiency,  which is
about the same as the photovoltaics you can buy today.  Spheral Solar is
very similar in technology to existing PVs,  except for the fact that
TI has developed a method of manufacturing that can use less expensive
materials.

	With more exotic technologies,  such as multi-layered thin films,
efficiencies of over 30% have been attained.  There have been recent
developments of photovoltaic cells based on somewhat different physics,
such as dye-based solar cells,  that could also lead to higher efficiency
and lower cost.

	Even today,  there are plenty of places where PVs are competitive.
Many of them are niche markets,  such as solar calculators,  but for
applications far away from power lines (such as highway aid stations here
in NM,  street lights in India,  some water pumping applications,  etc.),
solar can be very competitive.  I've heard that solar becomes competitive
with mains electricity if one has to string more than 1,000 feet of
wire to attach to the grid.


--
From: pd@x.co.uk (Paul Davey)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Halogen Lights Energy Efficiency
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:55:31 GMT
	<1992Sep7.145130.18467@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: IXI Ltd.

>>>>> On 7 Sep 92 14:51:30 GMT, morrison@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Vance Morrison) said:

Vance> In sci.energy you write:

>Is a halogen more energy than an incadescent?
>is a halogen bulb more efficient than a flourescent bulb?
>how do the three types of bulbs compare?
 ...

Vance> Anyway, to answer your question, halogens are more efficient, but not
Vance> amazingly so.  Something like 10%-30% more efficient.  Flourescents on
Vance> the other hand are more like 300-400% more efficient than incandecents
Vance> so clearly win when only energy efficency is of concern.  

I have some 10W 12V halogens in my boat - they are brighter (and
whiter) than the 21W 12V (Car turn signal lamps) that they replace.

This may be partly due to better engineering in the halogens (they
were $8 each) but I'd say their efficiency is better by a factor of at
least 100%.

Vance> If you don't like cool white, you CAN get flourecents with much better color
Vance> if you are willing to pay about 2-4 times as much for the bulb (you still
Vance> come out ahead in a big way).   

The 12V 2D style fluorescent lamp I have is 16W and is brighter again.
Since it isn't a filament source it's harder to judge.

It has a 3500K rating, (this is quite white), I think the most common
other rating (seen on mains fluorescent lamps) is 2700K.

(Note for non SI unit users - K = kelvin and the figures related to
the light given from a (platinum?) wire at that temperature.)

Personally I'm going for a mix of halogens and good quality
fluorescents with regular incandecents in ocassionally used lights.

--
 Regards,			  pd@x.co.uk           IXI Ltd.
	Paul Davey		  pd@ixi.uucp          62-74 Burleigh St.
				  ...!uunet!ixi!pd     Cambridge,  U.K.
 "These _are_ interesting times"  +44 223 462 131      CB1  1OJ
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Aluminium
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:45:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.003223.17139@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> int493b@mdw012.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr R.T. O'Sullivan) writes:

> This may (and probably will) soung completely crazy but I was
> wondering if there may be some way to burn aluminium or other metals
> as a cheap (as opposed to environmentally friendly) energy source.
> Perhaps aluminium cans or something.

Aluminum will burn, if made hot enough.  Also, aluminum will react in
alkali or acid and produce hydrogen gas (that's what happens in
certain drain cleaners, in fact, and the aluminum/alkali reaction is
used to make low density foamed concrete).  Aluminum can be
used as an expendable electrode in aluminum-air batteries (although
particular alloying elements must be added, and certain contaminants
excluded, to prevent the aluminum from corroding too quickly in the
electrolyte, so I doubt you could just toss in scrap metal).

If you decide to use aluminum in lye to make hydrogen, be warned
that the reaction is exothermic, and that the bubbles will produce
an alkali aerosol that you don't want to inhale.

Iron can also be used to make hydrogen, by the steam-iron reaction.
Red-hot iron exposed to steam will react to make iron oxide and
hydrogen.  It should probably be fairly finely divided.  This reaction
is endothermic, so some of the hydrogen would have to be burned.
Finely divided iron is also somewhat flammable (steel wool will burn,
especially in pure oxygen).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:45:13 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep8.232846.1206@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>This may not be true, of course, but I can unequivocally state that, at least,
>*I* am one such person.  Give me sufficient evidence that nuclear powerplant
>designs that are currently on the drawing board are, in fact, relatively
>likely to cause widespread damage, and I'll switch sides.  Convince me that
>nuclear waste, on a per-joule basis, is more damaging than the waste from
>a coal-fired plant, and I'll again switch sides.
>

See: "Safety Second" by the UCS, and "History of Nuclear Power Regulation"
by Okrent. Okrent is pro-nuke and concludes his book by arguing for the
safety of nuclear power, but my reading of his evidence leads to the
opposite conclusion. As for the novel nuclear power designs now
being proposed, I don't yet have an opinion.

>> The nuclear power lobby, the
>>NRC/AEC and all sorts of pro-nuclear hangers including some in this forum
>>have been repeatedly guilty of authoritatively insisting on some falsehood
>>or half-truth. 
>
>Such as?
>
>Which things have they insisted upon that are *blatantly* false?

E.g. containment structures in US plants were *designed* to handle
meltdowns, and probabilities of nuclear power accidents can be, and have
been, quantified well enough to enable straightforward
quantitative risk comparisons  between technologies. 

>>Why don't you familiarize yourself with the UCS alternative energy program
>>before you refute it? I'm sure that the UCS recommendations are eminently
>>debatable, but they have already been informed of the fact that the
>>Northeast is sometimes not particularly sunny and have taken that into
>>account.
>
>Indeed?  Have they also taken into account such things as the change in
>reflection coefficient of the surface when you put up a large solar-based
>plant, and how this will affect weather patterns and the greenhouse effect
>(I expect the effect on the greenhouse effect will be pretty much negligible,
>but I don't know if the same can be said of weather patterns)?  Have they
>taken into account the possibility (if it cannot be called a likelihood)
>that demand for power will increase?  Have they taken into account the
>maintenance required for large solar arrays (most designs I've heard about
>have to be kept clean, though this may not be true for the ones the UCS has
>in mind, in which case this is a non-issue)?

Seem to have.

>If it's not too much trouble, would you be so kind as to describe the UCS
>alternative energy program?

It is too much trouble right now, I'm afraid.  UCS publications are in 
many libraries and are available from the UCS office in Cambridge Mass.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Waste Facts
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:33:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Sep10.103338.18375
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <BuCELI.2ru@world.std.com> kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:
>The following was posted in alt.cyberpunk recently.  It's an excerpt from
>the speech that Bruce Sterling gave at this year's ALA conference:
> 
>>         We're already leaving some impressive gifts for the remote
>> future of this planet. Namely nuclear wastes. We're going to be
>> neatly archiving this repulsive trash in concrete and salt mines and
>> fused glass canisters, for tens of thousands of years. Imagine the
>> pleasure of discovering one of these nice radioactive time-bombs six
>> thousand years from now. Imagine the joy of dedicated archeologists
>> burrowing into one of these twentieth-century pharoah's tombs and
>> dropping dead, swiftly and painfully. Gosh, thanks, ancestors.
>> Thanks, twentieth century. Thanks for thinking of us.
> 
>Ok, as an exercise, I'd like to see how many holes sci.energy readers
>can poke in this one.  It's been a long time since I reviewed my nuclear
>waste info, so this should be educational. :)


"Gee, thanks 20th Century!  You were stupid enough to throw away all
this useful plutonium, spent uranium and other fuels, but we can use
em.  And the platinum group element fission products are also useful.
The radioactivity is now so low that the canisters are easy to mine
than the high grade uranium ore you used.  Our only complaint is that
you isolated them so well that they're hard to find from the surface.
If you had been considerate and let them leak a bit, we could have
found them that way."

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: electrical generation unit VAR?
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:21:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: kakwa.1992Sep11.012100.10317
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada



Recently at a tour of the Bighorn Dam on the N.  
Saskatchewan river, I noticed a strip chart calibrated in  
megavars, adjacent to one calibrated in megawatts.

What exactly is a var?  From context of the guide's talk, I  
think it deals with impedance matching between the local  
generation and the net consumption on the grid, but his  
explanation was keyed to grade 6's and was somewhat less  
than complete.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:50:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.024354.24129@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>>	I'm also aware that it's quite cost-inefficient.

>>Can anyone change my viewpoint? 

>What does it mean for solar power to be "too inefficient"?

>This could mean two things: (1) the low efficiency means too much land
>would be needed, or (2) the low efficiency contributes to high costs.

>(1) is clearly false.  In the US (for example) the total amount of
>sunlight hitting the country in a year exceeds primary energy
>consumption by a factor of 500.  So, with 10% efficient PV cells, and
>assuming the primary energy is replaced by PV electricity 1 for 1,
>we'd naively need to cover 2% of the country with collectors.  This is
>small compared to the area covered by, say, farms.

You make it sound like this land is being used for nothing and has
no competing demands.  You also have to remember that less than 100%
of the land in a big collector farm would be covered by panels, and you
need some kind of storage system to allow the power generated on sunny 
days to be used at night or on cloudy days.

In any event, I doubt it was land use that the original poster was referring
to.  By the way, why do I never hear the environmentalists complain
that this massive use of land would undoubtedly result in massive ecological
changes and use up lots of wild land.

>(2) is currently true, to some extent, but the cost/watt can be
>reduced without increasing the efficiency at all, simply by finding
>ways to make the collectors more cheaply.  

It is also necessary to have storage systems to allow people to use electricity
at night, and these multiply the inefficiency and cost.

>Economies of scale would no
>doubt apply to manufacture of collectors as they do to all other
>manufactured goods.  DOE estimates that costs will fall 70% for every
>tenfold increase in production experience and 40% for each tenfold
>increase in annual output.  PV has many profitable niche applications,
>and sales are growing about 20%/year in the US.

Economies of scale can help, but can't necessarily make the product cheap or
economical.  This sounds like wishful thinking to me.

>PV currently costs about $5/W (for modules) and $1-2/W for balance of
>system costs.  Modules cost will have to fall to $3/W for PV to
>compete for peaking power and $1/W to compete for bulk power.

What about stoarge systems?  What about the long-distance power lines to
get power from the deserts where all the power is to the cities where it is 
needed?  What about northern latitudes where wintertime sun is limited?

>Module efficiency does affect balance of system costs (supports,
>installation, etc.)  DOE thinks 15% efficiency is the goal to shoot
>for for flat plate collectors.

And then what?  Will PV power be at a break-even relative to coal or nuclear?
Or is that the point at which they think they will be able to ram it
down our throats and accept the economic losses?

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  -
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:24:59 GMT

In article <2865.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:

> Energy is a major component of goods and services; and, if there is a
> jump in the cost of energy, then virtually all costs are going to
> increase. Prices rose dramatically during and soon after the 1974 oil
> embargo, if my memory serves me correctly.

Yes, but at that time energy prices were increasing faster than the
prices of other goods and services.  Demand for energy, like anything
else, is elastic, and is only a part of the cost of making something,
so an increase in the price of energy does not translate into
proportional increases in the price of everything else.

In contrast, if energy prices over the long run have not exceeded
the rate of general inflation, then this is evidence that inflation
is not caused by increases in energy prices.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Waste Facts
Date: 10 Sep 92 09:47:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

KBK>The following was posted in alt.cyberpunk recently.  It's an excerpt from
KBK>the speech that Bruce Sterling gave at this year's ALA conference:

KBK>>         We're already leaving some impressive gifts for the remote
KBK>> future of this planet. Namely nuclear wastes. We're going to be
KBK>> neatly archiving this repulsive trash in concrete and salt mines and
KBK>> fused glass canisters, for tens of thousands of years. Imagine the> pleas
KBK>f discovering one of these nice radioactive time-bombs six
KBK>> thousand years from now. Imagine the joy of dedicated archeologists
KBK>> burrowing into one of these twentieth-century pharoah's tombs and
KBK>> dropping dead, swiftly and painfully. Gosh, thanks, ancestors.
KBK>> Thanks, twentieth century. Thanks for thinking of us.

KBK>Ok, as an exercise, I'd like to see how many holes sci.energy readers
KBK>can poke in this one.  It's been a long time since I reviewed my nuclear
KBK>waste info, so this should be educational. :)

It's been along time since I have reviewed my nuclear waste info too,
but I'll take a stab.

Well! in the first place Mr. Sterling is a bloody optimist. There will
probably not be anyone around six thousand years from now.

Secondly, the archeologists probably will not be so overjoyed. The
original pharoah's tombs had a lot of pretty pictures painted on the
walls.

Third, any surviving, intelligent, dedicated archeologist of the day
would undoubtedly have the latest, very high tech, microscopic, solid
state, stereo, radiation detectors implanted in his forehead.

Fourth, the half life of many of the elements is less than 5999 years.

Fifth, if they were exposed, they would dropped dead, painfully, but not
very swiftly.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . On a clear disk you can seek forever
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: META: Purloined .sigs (was: Radioactivity and Superstition)
Date: 15 Sep 1992 06:17:58 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hjnorris@eos.ncsu.edu's message of 11 Sep 92 12:47:21 GMT
Originator: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu

>                                                           .-.  .-.
>     <hjnorris@eos.ncsu.edu)   NCSU Nuclear Engineering   /  / /  /
>   |\/\/\/|                                              /  / /  /
> ::|      |:::Henry J. Norris:::::::::::::::::::::::::::/  / /  /::
> ::|  (o)(o):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(o)(o)  /:::
> ::C      _)::::::::::::: Who dares, Wins!::::::::::::O___    /::::
> :::| `-__|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::UUUo  (:::::

=o= Interesting signature.  One has to wonder why somebody at
NCSU Nuclear Engineering would want to swipe a .signature file
publicizing a major character from modern popular culture's most
trenchant anti-nuclear effort.

=o= The original has quite a different message.
Accept no imitations!                                     .-.  .-.
    <_Jym_>                                              /  / /  /
  |\/\/\/|                                              /  / /  /
::|      |::: Jym Dyer ::::::: jym@mica.berkeley.edu ::/  / /  /::
::|  (o)(o):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(o)(o)  /:::
::C      _):::: Annoying Republicans since 1960 :::::O___    /::::
:::| `-__|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::UUUo  (:::::