HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 01:15:09 GMT

In article <yjcshr=@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
|> 
|> >I agree with you only in that there is an imbalance in Federal vs. Local
|> >control of taxes.  I do not have the opinion of Federal taxes are wrong.
|> >I think they are essential for the nation - it is why the constitution
|> >was created in the first place.  Certain things must be done at a federal
|> >level, and certain regions of the country will be net payers and others
|> >net "tit-suckers".  Preferably, the government will allow this only
|> >where it truly benefits the nation as a whole.  It is up to us to elect
|> >officials who will do this correctly - any failing is directly due to
|> >voting for the wrong person.
|> 
|> Actually Richard, the Constitution was written specifically to prohibit
|> federal income taxes.  The founding fathers rightly feared a strong federal
|> government and realized that taxes were the root of power.  Check Article
|> 8, para 1 and 22.

Shouldn't that be Article I, section 8, para 1 & section 9 para 4?

At the time of the signing of the constitution no country had ever imposed an
income tax on its citizens. Britain was the first in 1799, although even this
was a temporary emergency measure. The common methods of taxation were head
taxes and consumption taxes. Since the paragraph in question specifically
addresses head taxes, and since there had been no history of income taxes in
the America or England, I would think the intent was to ensure uniformity of
congressionally imposed head taxes rather than prohibition of income tax.

The founding fathers did not in general fear a strong federal government ...
the Federalists were in power the first 12 years of constitutional rule. If
the founding fathers simply wanted a loose association of states they would
have stuck with the original Articles of Confederation.

|>  Note that any taxes levied against the citizens
|> must be uniform and based on the census.  Only after the ill-begotten
|> 16th amendment did the federal government gain the means of seizing
|> power from the states and the people.  (BTW, has anyone contemplated
|> the fact that the 16th did not repeal the requirement of Article 8, para 1
|> that taxes be uniform?  That would sure kill "progressive" [newspeak for
|> 'soak the worker, give to poor and gov't tit suckers'] tax schemes.)

A progressive income tax is not uniform, but then a flat income tax is not
either. Since sales taxes are regressive, having a progressive income tax
does not seem unreasonable to me.

hmm, this doesn't really seem to be directly relevant to energy does it ...

Larry Edwards
From: sls3x@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Energy storage using a spring
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:39:17 MDT
Organization: Utah State University



        I was just wondering if anyone has calculated the energy
storage capacity of a large spring.  Could it be useful in a car?


*****************************************************************
Jason Dommasch                                   sls3x@cc.usu.edu

Xref: sparky sci.energy:7298 talk.environment:5795
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:01:28 -0500 
From: Robert Courson <rc4x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: smog in Pittsburgh

In his message Re: NEWS: True costs of Com..., Mr. Stead cites Pittsburg
as an example of a smoggy city. I assume Mr. Stead is refering to
Pittsburgh, PA. If this is correct, I would take exception to your
characterization of what Rand McNally has called the country's "Most
Livable City". Your description of my town WAS accurate many years ago.
But, during the 1950's and 1960's, Pittsburgh cleaned up it's air and
water and polished up the skyline in what was called Renaissance I. This
was complimented by Renaissance II in the 1980's( a furthuring of these
efforts). Today, Pittsburgh has amoung the cleanest air and water of any
american city.

Robbe Courson
Department of Architecture
Carnegie Mellon University
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 10:37:21 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan23.000753.14523@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>Pondering this ...  Why not just use a 120 VDC battery pack and use
>120 VDC for a bunch of stuff?  Lightbulbs don't care if they are
>AC or DC,

Well, actually, the fluorescents with transformer ballasts *DOL* care.  They
need the AC for the transformer to work right.  Now, incandescent lamps will
handle DC quite well, and fluorescents with electronic ballasts want DC, I
think (but not necessarily 120-volt DC).

>nor do electric stoves and ovens or other resistive heat
>sources.

True.  However, if you care anything at all about energy efficiency, you don't
use resistive heat sources.

>Some tools have AC/DC motors.  120 VDC was a common motor
>type not too long ago, so I'd expect some motors to be available
>for things like house fans.

But it doesn't work very well for driving synchronous motors.

>Yeah, I know, you shouldn't have an electric stove or oven.  But
>the house already has one and my wife doesn't want to learn to 
>cook on gas.  (though I think it is really 220 ... more batteries...)

Cooking with gas it a lot easier than cooking on an electric range.  With an
electric range, you actually get near-instantaneous control of the amount of
heat you're generating, instead of the 15-30 second lag with electric.  Of
course, induction ranges are a whole different kettle of fish.

>So why not?  Why not have a 120 VDC battery bank directly running 
>the incadecent lights, and any easy to change motors like heaters,
>and any suitable electronic ballast CF bulbs?  Then you only need
>an inverter for the electronic stuff, some general purpose outlets
>in the kitchen and other parts of the house, and maybe the fridge.

Well, you've already told us you don't want to replace your range.  Switching
to DC means you've probably got to replace your refrigerator, your vacuum
cleaner, your television set, your stereo....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:41:32 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan21.225328.27641@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <58992@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>>>On the news last night:  Greenpeace releases a commissioned report (from
>>>>>someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown accident
>>>>>in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds than 
>>>>>the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
>>>
>>>Probably not.  Their attorneys would plead incompetence.
>>
>>Since all estimates in this "field" are backup up with a lot of hand-waving
>>it would be  tough to prove anything more than use of different
>>assumptions.
>
>Okay, Victor, here's your big chance:
>
>Tell us all how the chances of a meltdown from a CANDU are 1 in 17, not 
>1 in 17,000,....
>
>I want to see your model, your assumptions, and your *measured data* to 
>back this up. 

You should read what I write, before you respond. I did not claim that
the chances of a CANDU meltdown are 1 in 17, so I have no obligation to
defend that claim. I did claim that the current state of the art in 
forecasting the chances of a meltdown only allows for
highly subjective and very non-definitive results. Thus, I have no
confidence that the Greenpeace numbers mean anything more than the
discredited Rassmusen report's numbers did. I have, repeatedly,
posted my reasons for believing this, citing from the scholarly literature.
If you want, I'll repost.  

BTW, I'm still waiting for some meaningful numbers from you in defense of
EdF. Meaningful in this case means some independently verified figures on
how much EdF has invested in nuclear, debt load, and, say, delivered costs.
In the absence of these, claims about the success of the
French nuclear power effort seem contentless.
-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: pmcgilla@uwsuper.edu (PAT MCGILLAN)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle-Question
Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:55:38 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Superior, Wisconsin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.81.1.20

>RPR>If you know of anyone who has built an electric vehicle or if you
>RPR>have can you send me your address so I can ask a few questions?

I have a producion model electric called commuta car that was 
made in florida. Don't know how much it was new but I paid a grand for it
about 5 years ago

>RPR>1.      How many batteries were used and what exact type where they?

Mine has 9 - 6 volt golf cart batteries. Deep winter sucks a lot of power 
due to the cold, but I still have enough to get back and forth to work.

>RPR>2.      Did you use the exact same transmission already in the car

The motor is directly coupled to the rear end differential housing.

--
Patrick L. McGillan                  Computer Systems Specialist
University of Wisconsin              pmcgilla@uwsuper.edu
Superior, Wisconsin  54880           Ph: (715) 394-8191
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:51:39 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan22.142713.27201@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> trh2m@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Thomas Richard Hubbard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.225328.27641@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>>
>>Okay, Victor, here's your big chance:
>>
>>Tell us all how the chances of a meltdown from a CANDU are 1 in 17, not 
>>1 in 17,000,....
>>
>>I want to see your model, your assumptions, and your *measured data* to 
>>back this up. 
>
>While you're at it, please explain what you mean by the "chances of a meltown
>from a CANDU are 1 in 17."  Is this supposed to mean over the course of a
>year or for a certain number of operating hours?  Is this supposed to apply
>for any specific CANDU, or all CANDU's together?  This statement says
>nothing until you define the sample space.
>

I never made that claim. Try reading the post.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Real vs Govt Energy costs (Re: Roads and Taxes)
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:48:38 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan24.132908@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:

|over the last decade. They've all but massacred our coal industry,
|manufacturing industry, steel etc... Unemployment went through the roof in
|the early eighties and never quite recovered, and indeed is on it's way up
|again. We are in the deepest and longest recession since the thirties 
|depression and homelessness seems to be a permanent feature of our cities.
|All this after thirteen years of Thatcher/Reagan style conservatism.

Thatcher removed the subsidies that the coal and steel industries had
become addicted to and they collapsed.
It is not the removing of subsidies that is at fault, but the laxy
incompetent management that had grown dependent on those subsidies.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Level playing field for alternative fuels 
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 20:12:39 GMT

In article <5742.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) writes:
>  Yes, exactly so. Which is why it's foolhardy to fuss with the market. 
>The best alternative is to remove oil SUBSIDIES, which were contrived for 
>domestic producers, and which just enrich OPEC guys. Let alternative fuels 
>develop on a level playing field, and at the same time exact a cost for 
>pollution.

If alternative fuels are to have the same playing field, I propose that each
solar/wind farm undergoes a several year-long environmental impact study 
like current power producing facilities do.

And if one person in the community objects, will they be allowed to hold up
the construction indefinitely through lawsuit after lawsuit?

Hmmmm, thought so.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7204 talk.environment:5705
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Definition of "Short Trip"
Date: 25 Jan 1993 02:07:29 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1993Jan17.172955.12468@ke4zv.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gary@ke4zv.uucp's message of 17 Jan 93 17:29:55 GMT

>> Some how the concept of SHORT TRIPS has been disregarded
>> or possibly there is a definition of short trip that I am
>> not familiar with.
> Short trip: any trip that can be completed on one tank of
> gas or less. 

=o= Well, that may be "a definition," but it's certainly not
a useful one.  Unless there's a definition of "useful" that
I am not familiar with.

=o= Given that most auto trips are on the order of 6 miles
or less, perhaps one could use "6 miles or less" as a useful
definition of "short trip."
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: NEWS: British Petroleum Tanker Disaster Policy:  "Keep our Heads Down"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:38:14 GMT

: Just why is it that GreehHype doesn't say anything about the spill
: in Estonia?  Could it be that they want only to criticize the
: policies of western nations?

This is the first I've heard of a spill in Estonia.  It apparently
wasn't very well publicised in the USA.

: Sure seems that way from their past behavior.  Why, for example, didn't then
: condemn Saddam Hussein for torching the Kuwaiti oil fields?

They did.  And your telling lies about them will not change the truth.

: C'mon Jym, how about some answers instead of more GreenHype bullshit?
: Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

We cannot always tell when someone is telling the truth.  But when a
person consistently calls another offensive names and uses such
distorted names as "GreenHype" they clearly reveal themselves.
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
      Not representing my employer.
    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.  --- Thomas Jefferson
From: john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press rele
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:14:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) 

JW>On the news last night:  Greenpeace releases a commissioned report (fr
JW>someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown acci
JW>in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds t
JW>the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
JW>
JW>Biggest understatement (paraphrased):  "These numbers don't agree with
JW>(Ontario Hydro spokesman)
JW>
JW>Second biggest understatement (paraphrased):  "Making this kind of sta
JW>borders on the irresponsible."  (Ontario Hydro spokesman)

  Hey, I'll accept that: probably, the GP numbers are incorrect or 
exaggerated. Maybe you even know what the correct odds are.
  I think the REAL problem (and maybe this is only MY problem) is that the 
noxious deadly material is brought together and concentrated from all over 
the world, and then it produces useful energy which is disbursed, and then 
there is a horrendous residue of deadly stuff left over. Seems to me that 
this is the wrong way 'round. Seems to me we're just serving the old god 
of the 19th century: spend anything on centralized capital costs to save 
money on marginal costs. The ugly side-effect is the Love Canal or 
Hanford or Chernobyl phenomena, which brings home the point of the 
deadliness of this stuff, AND how easily safety precautions are ignored by 
executives and bureaucrats under pressure.
   Thus, it seems to me that distributed production of energy makes more 
sense. Which is one of the reasons I like Solar power and fuel alcohol.


---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#0 . Unregistered Evaluation Copy
                                                                                                                
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7263 talk.environment:5764
From: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: World Bank Recommends Halt of Czech N-Plant Construction
Keywords: environment nuclear press
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:52:59 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

In article <1993Jan25.200522.13382@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <Greenpeace.24Jan1993.2204@naughty-peahen> Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>
>No thanks.
>
>>"Even the World Bank talks in concrete terms", said Greenpeace
>>nuclear campaigner Gabi Wiener. "By continuing their nuclear
>>program, Eastern Europe and especially Czechia will be running
>>into an environmental and economical dead-end road. Safety and
>>economical reasons permit only one conclusion: Stop nuclear
>>energy - now!"
>
>Are you talking about just the poor eastern design or ALL power plants? 
>
>Looks like they're going to go fossil over nuclear. Better for the 
>environment, huh?

Ever considered that if might be better if they went for efficiency over
either, that would certainly be better for the environment. And these
countries have some of the most inefficient technology about.

James



--
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:59:45 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan22.093901.13563@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.213546.6235@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.234321.28329@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>>>How about the several Greenpeace press releases demanding an immediate
>>>ban on all use of chlorine compounds.  ("You there!  Put down that salt
>>>shaker or we'll shoot!!")
>
>>I have always heard it referred to as the chlorine manufacturing
>>industry (which provides chlorine by separating salts), or as
>>organochlorines.  In any case, the call is for a phase out of
>>such chemicals.
>>
>>Is your objection to the confusion with salt, or with the overall
>>position against organochlorines?
>
>The confusion with salt (Or, more to the point, the fact that whoever
>writes Greenpeace's press releases is blissfully unaware that salt is a
>chlorine compound) is just an exceptionally vivid reminder that

You seem to really believe that either A) table salt is manufactured
in an industrial process that uses chlorine, or that B) when someone
speaks against the use of some chemical in industry, that constitutes a
demand that the chemical should be eliminated from the environment. 
Neither of these is true.

>Even if they make a special exception for table salt, as I sit here
>thinking about the pervasiveness of chlorine compounds in the chemical
>industry...  the mind boggles.   Moderates think I'm exaggerating
>to the point of ranting when I say the hard-core greenies want to
>put an end to industrial civilization.  Unfortunately, it's not an
>exaggeration.  

Please tell us what other industrial uses of chlorine you have in mind.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 20:24:02 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

>I agree with you only in that there is an imbalance in Federal vs. Local
>control of taxes.  I do not have the opinion of Federal taxes are wrong.
>I think they are essential for the nation - it is why the constitution
>was created in the first place.  Certain things must be done at a federal
>level, and certain regions of the country will be net payers and others
>net "tit-suckers".  Preferably, the government will allow this only
>where it truly benefits the nation as a whole.  It is up to us to elect
>officials who will do this correctly - any failing is directly due to
>voting for the wrong person.

Actually Richard, the Constitution was written specifically to prohibit
federal income taxes.  The founding fathers rightly feared a strong federal
government and realized that taxes were the root of power.  Check Article
8, para 1 and 22.  Note that any taxes levied against the citizens
must be uniform and based on the census.  Only after the ill-begotten
16th amendment did the federal government gain the means of seizing
power from the states and the people.  (BTW, has anyone contemplated
the fact that the 16th did not repeal the requirement of Article 8, para 1
that taxes be uniform?  That would sure kill "progressive" [newspeak for
'soak the worker, give to poor and gov't tit suckers'] tax schemes.)

>This discussion has moved far from energy (a discussion of energy policy
>and the role a gas tax could have) into the realm of personal invective
>(John) and pure politics.  I am not interested in furthering this beyond
>this response, so if anyone has further comments for me personally, better
>Email them, I will not post any more on this thread unless it deals
>specifically with energy.

That's right, run from the controversy.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.