HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:40:42 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <54008@dime.cs.umass.edu: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
:I have not seen any claims in the scientific literature that risk models
:invalidate subjective concerns such as doubts about the efficacy of 
:the NRC or doubts about whether probability estimates are correct
:within an order of magnitude. Note that the AEC's own review of the 
:Wash-1400 report produced some predictions of a major accident every
:50 years of 200 reactor operation (or something like that, perhaps even
:more). 

Um, if you are refering to the Lewis Report, it was produced by the NRC,
not the AEC.  It was chaired by H. W. Lewis, NUREG/CR-400, 1978.  Their
principle findings were that the error bounds were understated, and they were
critical of the executive summary.  They also stated that WASH-1400 was the
most exhaustive and thorough study done to date.  Lewis himself has testified
in Congress that his personal belief is that WASH-1400 overstated the actual
risks, that the real probablilties were much lower.  (Unfortunately I am
unable to find the actual testimony, does anyone know when he testified?)

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4781 talk.environment:4035
From: jere@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Perpetual Student)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:44:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Oct2.195807.14399@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>
>But I didn't say this.  I was pointing out the existence of the anti-nuclear
>industry, not advocating its removal.  In my view it is the nuclear industry
>that has failed to sell itself, albeit under the yoke of two massive   
>handicaps in the sport of public relations:  scientific vernacular and 
>scientific responsibility - both shirked to great advantage by the anti-nuclear
>forces.  However, we should remember that other equally
>technologically complex industries get along quite well in the public
>perception, quite often despite far worse safety and accident records.
>

There are no industries that I can think of that carry the same media
induced angst as the nuclear industry.  Things that people can't see
more often than not frighten them, particularly if there is little
understanding of science by the observer.  True, the vernacular is
difficult, and not the slightest bit tedious.  This has become a major
stumbling block for public education.  Combine this with a media
controlled by money and leftist ideoligies (donning asbestos suit)
with a public not eager to find out the facts behind the stories
and you have a perfect medium for the _too-well-organized_ anti-nuclear
movement to perform its mission.

Case in point:  The shutdown of a reactor in Japan when the reactor
tripped after a pump was inadvertantly shut down (human factors 101);
the ECCS performed its mission, and no harm was done.  But in the
Purdue Exponent, which takes its news from the wire (so I don't
really know where this hair-brained idea came from), it was described
as a near melt-down accident.  


jere


-- 
     Here I am in a house full of doors with no exits.- N.O.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jere H. Jenkins					jere@ecn.purdue.edu
Purdue University Nuclear Engineering
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: --Early Turbine Still
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:56:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

TG>Very little is left of the original wind turbine installed
TG>in Nova Scotia.  However, that's not entirely out of line
TG>with modern turbines being installed in the field.  Analyses
TG>of wind turbine costs currently generally assume that two
TG>major overhauls will be needed during the turbine's 25-year
TG>life, including replacement of some major components.

TG>The operating environment of wind turbines is very severe,
TG>and poses a stringent test for typical industrial equipment.
TG>Even so, the total cost of power produced by them is currently
TG>in the range of 6-9 cents/kWh and reductions of 30-50% are
TG>expected by the end of this decade.

The new variable speed machines can operate with much less abuse
and deliver electrical energy at 5 cents/kWh and a cost of $1 /watt
installed. Many are being installed now worldwide, so we won't need to
wait till the end of the decade, century, millienia for competitive
machines.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . I'm in shape ... round's a shape isn't it?
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:50:30 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <STEINLY.92Oct6122939@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.062440.3437@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>   From the Oct 1 San Jose Murkey News, page 14A, dateline TOKYO (AP)

>Fascinating choice of deletions, the Sentinel also published the AP
>story along with the 18 worst nuclear accidents, 

The (numbered) deletions were:  

*** BEGIN DELETIONS POST ***

1)

It uses ordinary water for cooling and to moderate the flow of neutrons
that split the atoms that produce nuclear reactions.

2)

A meltdown could occur if a reactor's rods heat to the point where their
uranium fuel starts to melt and collects in a puddle on the reactor floor.
A partial meltdown occurred during the nuclear accident at Three Mile
Island in Middletown, Pa., on March 28, 1979, the worst commercial
accident in U.S.History.

The world's worst nuclear accident occurred April 26, 1986, at the
Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union.
It involved an explosion at a graphite-block-moderated reactor.

3)

An arial photograph of the reactor site with the caption: A worker
flipped a switch by mistake at the Fukushima nuclear power plant,
70 miles northeast of Tokyo

*** END DELETIONS POST ***

I deleted these two text blocks since they seemed to be material that 
was clearly well known to folks in this group.  The photo was deleted
since I don't have a scanner ...

I don't see a thing about them that is 'facinating'.  In fact, I think
they are rather dull and boring blocks of text, which is why I deleted
them...

Perhaps you paper had a longer version of the AP story?  Local papers
WILL often edit wire stories to fit the page ...  I'd be interested
in knowing what the Murkey News editor choose to throw away...  There
was no list of 18 accidents in my paper...

>what it boiled down
>to is that nothing happened, nobody was hurt, the core remained
>covered and cooled and 16 of the 18 other incidents listed were
>non-events as far as harm to the public goes (exceptions were
>Chernobyl and Windscale). You are right though, this sort of article
>is precisely why people are afraid of things nuclear.

So what can be done about it?

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Sup
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:08:21 GMT

In <3234.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:

>JW>It appears to be spoon-feeding time.  Okay, since A.Lovins has been been
>JW>mentioned here recently, let's consider him.  In the mid-80's he made about
>JW>$600/day as a consultant and speaker.  "Energy consultant" label aside,
>JW>Lovins is anti-nuclear at the heart.  He has made big money from the
>JW>movement, and he has tremendous power.  Need I go on?  (Please don't come
>JW>back with "Okay, that's one.  Who else...?")

>$600/day is chicken feed. A great number of lawyers in that period
>charged $600/hr. A lot more do today. My ex-boss, a PH/D physicist,
>charges $160/hr for consulting and he charged $95/hr for my time.

And can he fill his ledger as easily as Lovins?

A lot of people have the expertise and ability required to earn > $600/day. 
The argument goes, much less expertise and ability are required to earn it
by environmental alarmism.


Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Arguments
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:46:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.084137.2515@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca () writes:
>In <3100.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
>
>>We renewable energy fanatics find the arguments over the safety of
>>nuclear power versus fossil-fueled power so boringly moot.
>
>This would be believable if you fanatics spent as much effort
>denouncing fossil as you spend denouncing nuclear.
>

This fanatic denounces neither, but instead stanchly supports the fact
that I *can* generate my own electricity :-)  
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! NotIU's! #Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! #nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion#family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #Space For Rent
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Armondism (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:40:34 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <w-_pd6k@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>Only thing I want to know, yackadam, and that is how you do it.  I mean, I'm 
>semi-retired and I don't have time to create half the noise you do.  Even 

I don't have to move my lips when I read. That may explain the disparity.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Old nukes, new nukes. (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:04:20 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep30.110317.14261@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Meanwhile, a 1,000 MW coal
>plant puts enough toxics in the air to cause 10,000 excess cancers
>each year downwind of the plant. That's from a Pennsylvania study. 

Life is cheap in Pennsylvania, apparently. Care to sharpen the
reference a little?

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Arguments
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:32:57 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <3211.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
>JW>Fossil fuel plants are going to be built in large numbers throughout the
>JW>world over the next 20-30 years, wherever baseload demand jumps and nuclear
>JW>power cannot, by political, economic, or time constraint, provide the
>JW>additional supply.  Regardless of anyone's pet choice of electricity
>JW>production, a discussion of fossil fuel's drawbacks, versus the next
>JW>available alternative, is hardly moot.
>
>Usually the argument about the safety of nuclear vrs. coal-fired
>power plants boils down to how much radioactivity escapes into the
>environment from these plants. This argument does not seem to occur
>between the other technologies.

The reason this argument crops up is that the anti-nukes make all sorts of
claims about the amount of radioactivity released in an accident at a nuclear
plant.  The pro-nukes then point out that even the worst accidents we've had in
the U.S. have released less radioactivity than coal-fired plants release in
normal operation.  This should not be interpreted as meaning that the amount of
radioactivity released by nuclear power plants is large (note: please keep
discussions of nuclear WEAPONS plants separate).

>You are correct in saying that a great number of fossil-fueled plants
>will be built in the near future since the DOE says that by the year
>2000 the average age of coal-fired plants in the United States will be
>38 years, gas-fired - 42 years, and that of oil-fired - 47 years. But it
>is a near certainty that many of these plants will be replaced by wind,
>solar and (most important) energy conservation, especially in California
>where it is nearly impossible to build either a nuclear or a
>fossil-fueled plant.

That's OK, we just build our fossil-fueled plants in other states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Oct1.065732.20168@netcom.com> <JMC.92Oct1143011@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Oct1.221108.1452@vexcel.com>
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:33:30

Dingo's concept of messages getting through is forcing people to repeat
your propaganda.

What would happen if a utility put the message in a flier and then
said, "However, here are some of the advantages of using more
electricity"?  They would find out the next time their allowed rates were
being set.  You S.O.B.'s have them by the balls, but I don't work
for a utility and can say what I please.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.engr.civil,sci.engr.mech,sci.misc
From: cs921022@ariel.yorku.ca (MING HE)
Subject: WANTED: Mechnical press
Organization: CS, York Univ., Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:51:49 GMT

Greeting,

Here I am posting for my friend who is looking for press machines.

============	  C U T      H E R E	===============




We are looking for second-hand Mechanical Presses.



NAME		:  Mechanical Press

QUANTITY	:  8 pieces

TERM		:  second hand equipments



SPECIFICATION	:

	1) Nominal Capacity		:  8000 KN

	2) Stroke of Slide		:  500 - 600 mm

	3) Bolster Size (FB x RL)	:  1800 - 4000 mm  or
					   2000 - 4000 mm

	4) Max. Die Height		:  990 - 1400 mm

	5) Die Height Adjustment	:  appro. 500 mm

	6) Bolster Moving Type		:  as figure below


                                           /^\
            	    (The arrows are         |
                       directions           |     +---------+
            	                            | /   |         |
                     The square is the      |<----+--       |
            	        bird-view draft     | \   |         |
                        of the press   )    |     +---------+
                                            |
		                           \./


TYPE	:  Both below are fine,

	1) Straight Side Two-point Single Action Mechanical Presses;

	2) Straight Side Four-point Single Action Mechanical Presses;


ALSO  SEARCHING:

	Mechanical Press
	Nominal Capacity:  32,000 kN above
	Width of Bolster:  5000 mm above

We also looking for second hand equipments related to automobile productions.

Any who has the above mentioned mechidises and no longer willing to
keep them, please reply to cs921022@ariel.yorku.ca or contact (416)
669-6427 with Jack.

(The above number is both voice and fax.)

Any one who can offer any clue on where to find these kind of machine
is greatly appreciated.


With regards,


Malcolm
Producting Assistant Manager, DG Co.




===========       C U T     H E R E     ===============

Fellow netters, e-mail is preferable as I normally log in all the
days.  And please don't post the response. :-)

--
Jeffery M. He                               cs921022@ariel.yorku.ca
"The universe is started from a high density dot,  and no one can tell
where it will go."
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Arguments
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:56:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 


TI>Newsgroups: sci.energy
TI>From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
TI>Subject: Re: Arguments
TI>Message-ID: <1992Sep25.124208.6777@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
TI>Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
TI>Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 12:42:08 GMT

TI>In article <1992Sep25.123926.6530@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.
TI>(Tino) writes:
TI>>In article <3100.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard
TI>th) writes:
TI>>>We renewable energy fanatics find the arguments over the safety of
TI>>>nuclear power versus fossil-fueled power so boringly moot.
TI>>
TI>>I must admit I'm not very knowledgable about "renewable energy" sources.
TI>>What are you referring to by this? If it's hydro or solar, you can be
TI>>expected to jump into the safety fray. These technologies aren't
TI>>100.0000000000000000000% safe either, like nuke is.

TI>Before you flame me to death, I didn't mean to imply that nuke IS
TI>100.0000... % safe. I meant to say that all technologies should come under
TI>the same scutiny, because every one of them is capable of killing SOMEONE.

TI>Tino
TI>--
TI>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TI>"The nuclear scientist will prepare the bed on which mankind must lie; and
TI> if mankind doesn't fit - well, that will be just too bad for mankind."
TI>                                      - Aldous Huxley
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . On a clear disk you can seek forever
                                                                                     
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: adf1@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Nuclear Health!!
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:23:30 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton

Hello Everyone,
I just took a tour of a Nuclear Power Plant, it was very interesting.
But I have a few questions and I was wondering if anyone could help
me out. 
1.What does the operator of the plant do for the basic health protection
of its employees.
2.Is O.S.H.A. the watch dog for there safety or if not who is.
And what role or rules do they set.
Thankyou
Art
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 27 Sep 92 12:23:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Sep27.122308.29346
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <19vfieINNahj@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.104529.9909@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>=To reinforce this point, the Southern Building Code requires roofs
>=to be designed to sustain 20 lb/sqft static load. In the North the
>=Code requires 40 lb/sqft. Both are adequate to any reasonable solar
>=panel installation.
>
>Plus the snow in the north?

Yes for two reasons. First, photovoltaic panels of today's design impose
a roof loading of around 4 lb/sqft. That's well within the loadings 
anticipated by the Code. Second, in the north, panels must be inclined
at a steeper angle than in the south. That means that not much snow will
*accumulate* on them. The Code requires 40 lb/sqft in the north to 
accomodate snow loading on a *flat* roof. Since the collectors will be
inclined at an angle of more than 40 degrees, the problem doesn't arise
unless the panels are mounted to a flat roof where the snow that slides
off of them still stays on the roof. Note that that's still the same
amount of snow that would have fallen on the flat roof, only the excess
4 lb of the collectors has to be carried. The Code has adequate safety
margin to handle that. Most roofs are built stronger than Code requirement
in any case simply because of the step size of standard building materials.

Gary
From: borowski@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Don T. Borowski)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: --Utility to Buy Windpower
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:53:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpspkla.1910028
Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa.

Puget Sound Power & Light also buys the electricity produce by the
garbage burner here in Spokane.


Donald Borowski    WA6OMI    Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
                                       -G.K. Chesterton
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 4 Oct 92 06:11:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct2.153239.20355@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>In article <3042.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>
>> Speculation by several observers is that the preferred
>> method of storage will be hydrogen through electrolysis and
>> then regeneration back to electricity through fuel cells.
>
>This would be crazy.  Conventional batteries are cheaper and more
>efficient.  SoCal Edison has experience with battery banks for load
>leveling (the Chino facility).  They are experimenting with fuel cells
>(molten carbonate cells), but for generation, not storage.  Hydrogen
>from electrolysis doesn't compete with hydrogen from reformed fossil
>fuels until electricity drops to $.01-.02/kWh.

Do you happen to know the projected cost for storage via the 
thermal breakdown of methanol to CO + 2H2 and back again?
(I hope I got the process right... it's the one proposed for
storing nuclear energy for peak use by a reversable catalytic
breakdown of a hydrocarbon compound... it also has been looked 
at as a thermal solar storage system.)  

-- 
E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

"Nothing can keep an argument going like two persons who aren't
sure what they're arguing about."   O.A.Battista
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebutt
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:44:07 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct2.100946.6278@sinix.UUCP> egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS) writes:

>So the aim must be to use high quality (and expensive) energy like
>electrical energy only were it's absolutely necessary.

I prefer to think that electrical energy is so versatile, we should try
to adapt it to all our energy requirements.  Electricity does not have
to be expensive.  Many ways are known of generating electricity.  Many
approaches are "bad" for political reasons, not technical
reasons (eg nuclear and  some mega hydro).  There are numerous
"leading edge" technologies which can generate electricity (PV, wind,
micro-hydro, fuel cell).  These need only be developed to become economical.

Given that we would prefer to maintain a reasonable level of comfort
and a reasonable standard of living, there is no reason why elecricity
could not be the ideal means of delivering energy.

______________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation