HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:05:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.174542.9779@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.163028.6426@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.150423.8028@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>     As far as their planning,  no new capacity for 10 years sounds 
>>     like the same recipe for disaster that have seen in the northeast
>>     (Unless the new TI solar cell can somehow be rushed into economical
>>     production over the next few years and it is 'shared' with PG&E).
>>     Sounds more like a PR game.
>
>They plan on a lot of new capacity by what they call "negawatts", freeing
>up current capacity through efficiency.

     Let's at least get our terminology straight.  This is 'reduced
     demand', not 'increased capacity'.  

>>>Market conditions are not good for independent producers of renewables
>>>like LUZ, as described in the January issue of Solar Today.  Nevertheless,
>>>the technology has survived even if the company didn't.  Luz served as
>>>an inovator in an industry that is lacking in innovation.
>>
>>     However, it is market conditions that should predominate in power
>>     generation, not wishful thinking.
>
>Most PUC pricing methods are not tied closely to market conditions,
>which is why many utilities are not using renewables or efficiency
>strategies as much as they could.  All of my suggestions are based
>on EPRI studies (are they ecoterrorists?) and similar research.  Is
>this what you call wishful thinking?  Or is wishful thinking any idea
>that disagrees with your dogma?

     I suspect that your reading of EPRI documents is somewhat
     overoptimistic.

     On a more useful note. get together with 
     Westinghouse and offer an option (whatever technology
     you are currently charged about) for sale to Virginia Power at $5 
     million under their newest coal-fired plant with the same or
     reduced life-cycle costs and similar reliability.  I guarantee that 
     they will accept.

                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:36:51 GMT

In article <Bs13Bu.tJ@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>I certainly wouldn't use it unless I had no choice, and you could claim
>that everyone would benefit if everyone had to pay a certain class of people
>to stay home and not drive at all (the recipients would benefit financially
>while the folks who pay would "benefit" from less traffic, but that doesn't
>mean that it is a worthwhile trade-off.

If, in fact, the people who were bribed to stay home benefitted, and those who
bribed them benefitted, then, unless you've got some bizarre attitude that says
driving per se is good, it would perforce be a worthwhile tradeoff.  Care to
make another stab at saying what you meant?  Or *DO YOU* think that driving,
per se, is good?

>Yeah, I hear that buses are "cleaner" all the time, but the ONLY air 
>pollution problem I have directly smelled (as opposed to reading about
>as readings from instruments) is when I am  blasted in the face with exhaust as
>those buses take off at a corner.  I hate that!

Fine.  You hate it.  Now, compare the number of buses on the streets to the
number of cars.  Consider the fact that many pollutants are odorless.  Next
time you come up with a piece of bullshit like this, think before you post
instead of damaging your (and my, and John McCarthy's,...) credibility.

>>I'm not familiar with LA but there are cities where public transportation
>>is not just safer and cleaner, but necessary, and for many purposes, simpler
>>faster, more convenient, and if you like reading, more comfortable.
>
>More convenient?  Absolutely not.  How can you shop for groceries and take 
>home more than you can carry at once?  How can you travel at odd hours of
>the night?  (And do women dare travel at night where they have to be out
>of their car between destinations?)  What if where you are going is far from
>a station?  What if you live far from a station?

Please learn to read.  The person to whom you were responding said "THERE ARE
CITIES where public transportation...."  He did NOT say that Los Angeles (or,
for that matter, any other U.S. city) was one of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:27:10 GMT
	<JMC.92Jul24101907@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul26.072736.12153@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca's message of Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:27:36 GMT


In article <1992Jul26.072736.12153@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:


   Dean Alaska writes:
   >
   >     A significant issue here has been the need to build new
   >     power plants.  Peak demand is the crucial factor for this.
   >     The premise in my thread with C.R. Bass was that neither
   >     coal nor nuclear power plant construction is needed in the
   >     near future due to efficiency and renewables.
   >

   But, even though far more coal plants are being built than nuclear
   plants, the objection is predominantly against nuclear.

   As long as coal plants are being built, there is a strong case
   for nuclear. When 'efficiency and renewables' start closing
   down coal plants, the case for nuclear will dwindle.

There is a strong argument that in fact large old coal plants
should be phased out and replaced with new (nuclear) plants.
Between concern over greenhouse affects and sulphate emissions,
even new coal plants could argued to be undesireable, I'd say
any coal plant over 20 years old is a good candidate for shutdown.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	          *
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	          *
*  Ain't you heard of the the starving millions?     			  *
*  Ain't you heard of contraception?  "Too much too young" Specials, 1979 * 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: What is Market Efficiency.  was Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:56:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.054512.23993@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.234406.2637@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.203807.18704@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>>>>Market efficiciency has nothing to do with production.  
>>>
>>>Re-read that.  Twice.  NOTHING to do with PRODUCTION.  It has everything
>>>to do with THE MARKET (i.e. the point where things are BOUGHT and SOLD.)
>>>
>>>MARKET efficiency just asks how effective the market is at communicating
>>>REAL product differences and avoiding MONOPOLY PRICING.
>>
>>      Unfortunately all my econ texts are boxed, but:

     [my examples deleted]

>Or you might want to reread what he said a bit more carefully.  Economic
>efficiency includes both market efficiency and efficiency of production. 
>Michael referred specifically to the MARKET part.

     I read it the first time.  I do not agree that the concept of 
     market efficiency is so narrowly defined.  For a more authoritative
     response, see my response to Mr. Smith's farewell to me.

>>>It isn't strange at all.  You are continuing to confound MARKET efficiency
>>>with PRODUCTION or DISTRIBUTION efficiency.  It has nothing to do with
>>>government subsidy of production or taxation.  It has nothing to do
>>>with the inherent safety of a product.  It has everything to do with
>>>a vendor pricing that product higher than they otherwise could if the
>>>purchaser had more perfect knowledge of the alternatives and costs.
>>>(i.e. if advertizing wasn't creating bogus perceptions.)
>>
>>     Strange that I'd do that since, according to you, efficiency has nothing
>>     to do with production or distribution.  I again suggest writing
>>     the authors above so that people like me will not be further misled.
>>     Have them differentiate between the different types of economic
>>     efficiency more carefully.
>
>I'm afraid that it wouldn't do any good since you ignore the term "market" even
>though Michael took the trouble to capitalize it.

     I did not ignore it.  I simply do not agree with his limitation of 
     the concept 'market efficiency'.  Feel free to support your position 
     with authoritative sources, though that may be a bit difficult.  
     See my authoritative response in an article about Mr. Smith's killfile.

     Pricing and its efficiency are hardly limited to simply the
     vibes of the buyers and sellers.  If we were talking about capital
     markets, I might have to agree.  However, in the context of consumer
     markets I still do not.

                                  dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:48:09 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul25.171456.12988@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
...The 
>downtown is a dinosaur that hasn't got the message that it is dead yet.

	Tell that to anyone who has ever shopped at a shopping mall
:-)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: Interstate Freeway System (was: Cost of public vs. ...) 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:43:08 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Jul22.135049.25666@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>As I recall (sorry, no references), part of the justification for the 
>interstate freeway system was military:  to facilitate the rapid 
>deployment of troops anywhere in the country.  That would partially
>justify the expenditure of general funds to build it.
>

As I recall, that was the *main* justification.  Of course, General Dynamics,
a division of GM, builds the nation's tanks.  The highways were built
after a major world war and during the cold war, when we were afraid of
being invaded (Is anyone still afraid of the threat of invasion?).  Has
the military ever used the Highway System to move large amounts of 
personnel and equipment large distances?  Maybe this is part of 
Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" bogeyman.

I like Carl's idea.  Make them all toll-roads.  If you wish, tanks ride
free :-)  (Oh yeah, and part of the military budget goes toward the roads.)

Ken
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<BruLBA.KCp@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <1992Jul25.045039.9839@sugra.uucp>
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:16:17

Kenneth remarks about Greenpeace:

     I'm suprised they have not tried banning microwave ovens
     because they use *RADIATION* to cook the food.

I dunno about Greenpeace, but Ralph Nader did try to ban microwave
ovens for that reason.  If Nader is responsible for the slower
penetration of microwave ovens in the U.S. as compared to Japan,
he killed a lot of children.  No-one has been injured by a microwave
oven, but the conventional cooking that might have been displaced
partly by microwave cooking has proabably killed a few hundred
children in the last 20 years.  The Statistical Abstract does
not give enough information for detailed arithmetic.  It is certain
that Nader never bothered to ascertain the impact of his campaign.

Well he's a lawyer, and to a lawyer, science is just something from
which you select a few facts that will help your cause.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 15:41:33 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <11008@cis.rand.org> rodger@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison) writes:
>In article <R4Q-##A@engin.umich.edu>, blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
>
>> The only system I can think of that currently makes all driving decisions
>> for you is mass transit.
>> 
>> Ken
>
>Well, as a previous poster pointed out, most of the nations commercial
>airlines fly automated systems.  I haven't heard of any fatalities related
>to this.  There almost certainly will be but they almost certainly will be
>caused by a failure of maintenance or procedure (ie. human error).  I
>don't have a big problem flying on such a system because the number of
>systems is small enough, and the knowledge and motivation of however is
>doing the maintenance is high enough that failures will be extremely rare.
>I would still argue that creating a system of similar complexity for
>automobiles would be a disaster.  Both the failure rate, due to improper
>or neglected maintenace, and the number of systems involved would be
>several orders of magnitude greater that what is now working in the
>commercial air system.
>

Alright, someone correct me with concrete examples.  I was told earlier
this year (by Aviation Week and Space Technology) that Airbus's new
jet liner was the first to be fully automated.  I think you folks are
getting carried away with this idea that the nation's air traffic is
automated.  Parts of the newest planes are fly-by-wire, but that does
*not* mean that "most of the nations commercial airlines fly automated
systems".

Ken
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9701 sci.energy:3488 sci.physics:11290
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less pollutin
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:17:50 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <kR29NB8w164w@musubi.pubnet.com> ehenigin@musubi.pubnet.com (Edward Henigin) writes:
>houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>        While I acknowledge that I don't have all my facts in order, I would 
>encourage people looking at the power versus pollution issue to take a looka 
>at coal fired plants, which generally recieve little if know attention due 
>to the hype surrounding reactor power plants.  The bottom line is how does 
>the output of a power plant affect people and environment, and the pollution 
>produced by a coal fired plant (radioactive and non radioactive) is large.

An even worse problem with coal burning is what to do with the clinkers when 
your done.  A lump of coal when burned pops like pop-corn producing a clinker
that is about twice the volumne of the original lump.  The waste problem from
coal is easily a order of magitude bigger then that from fission plants as 
nuc waste is no worse then the original oar after about 300 years but the
clinker last forever.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: More Global Warming
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:56:31 GMT

Ten Billion dollars from air pollution?  Where did they get that kind of
figure from?  Sounds more like a Greenpeace number than one from the
Lung association.  I wonder how they could compute the cases and where
they thought the worst problems came from.  Even if that figure is accurate
though, I would much rather have a few billion in extra medical bills
from some air pollution than go without all the things that cause the air
pollution.  To put it more concretely, if I could choose between having 100%
clan air and having a car (and breathing the pollution present in LA), the
choice would be the car and the pollution rather than the no car and clean air.
How about you?

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<STEINLY.92Jul26142710@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Jul27.151824.7138@vexcel.com>
	<STEINLY.92Jul27163017@topaz.ucsc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:04:33

In 1979 there was a conference on what might be done in a possible
energy emergency, and the representative of Westinghouse said that
nuclear plants could be built in two years without wartime priorities
but also without regulatory delays.

The early turnkey nuclear plants - before the legal guerrila warfare -
were built in something like five years.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9992 sci.physics:11619 sci.energy:3667
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:50:39 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <BruLBA.KCp@watserv1.waterloo.edu:, rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell) writes:
: A few weeks ago, a Greenpeace representative said that there was no difference
: between the designs of the Chernobyl reactors, the Three mile Island reactors,
:and CANDU reactors.  My faith in my fellow man sighs at this level of ignorance
: my cynicism tells me that it might have been a deliberate misrepresentation 
: of the facts.  Either perception leads one to the conclusion that Greenpeace,
: at least, perhaps many other groups, are a pack of Luddites.
: A luddite engineer is a contradiction in terms, much like a black clansman.

Wow, I guess by their thinking wood alcohol is just as drinkable as whiskey,
murderers are law enforcement officials because they both use guns, you can
put tar into your gas tank as fuel (they do both come from the same source),
and botolism toxin is a great source of food (just rearrange the oxygen,
nitrogen and carbon atoms a little).

I'm suprised they have not tried banning microwave ovens because they use
*RADIATION* to cook the food.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:54:10 GMT
	<STEINLY.92Jul28133550@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Jul28.221116.2989@vexcel.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 28 Jul 92 22:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.221116.2989@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Jul28133550@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <1992Jul28.145134.1429@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
   >
   >   The facts I have quoted indicate otherwise.  Ongoing DSM projects 
   >   already have the capacity to "retrieve" energy on this scale: "This
   >   DSM will provide a reduction of 45 GW ... in 2000, and a potential
   >   capital savings of up to $45 billion." from the EPRI report.  This quote
   >
   >Does this refer to actual saving, or saving relative to projected
   >demand? Big difference.

   The numbers refer to "reductions in peak summer demand." 
   Since these numbers are absolute figures rather than percentages, they
   are not "relative".  If projected demand is lower than expected, then
   I imagine the savings would also be.  Ditto if demand was above
   projections.  Is this the point you are trying to make?  In any case,
   these numbers represent the status quo.  Clearly, much larger savings
   are possible with a concerted effort.

No, the question was: is this 45GW less than current generation
capacity or 45GW less than we figure we'll need given demographic 
and industrial trends and no attempt at efficiency. The first case
allows you to retire your "worst" capacity, the second case allows
you to build less - that's a difference. Reason I ask, is that figures
like this are almost always compared to projected demand if... 
rather than current demand. It's sort of like government budgets,
savings are only relative to wildly optimistic projections, not
reality.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  If you ever have to go to Shoeburyness			*
*  Take the A-road, the ok road, that's the best!		*
*  Go motoring on The A13!	- BB 1983			*
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:45:16

When the San Francisco bridges were built, it was promised that they
would be toll free when the bonds had been paid off.  The city or
bridge authority immediately reneged when this had been done in
the 1960s or 70s.  I believe the ferries and other lawyers' hobbies
are subsidized by bridge tolls.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy