HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:19:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.205308.12613@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.200847.11123@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.183503.9094@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>
>>>     I repeat again.  There was no increase in generating capacity
>>>     in CA in the 80's?
>>
>>Primary new capacity came from efficiency. 
>
>     How much is 'primary' how much from actual new capacity?   Keep in mind
>     that you said that there was 'no increase in generating capacity'.

I admit that the statement was a generalization since I don't know what
all utilities in the state did.  And I don't have the specific figures
for this since I don't save everything I read.
>
>     Also can't pump that well forever.  What now?  75% from 'efficiency'
>     over a decade seems a bit steep to my skeptical engineering-trained
>     mind.

Acutally the PG&E projection was until 2010.  I am not qualified to
criticize PG&E projections.  I am sure there are plenty of others who
are skeptical but I would think that a major utility would not gamble
on such a critical issue.  Doubts about the accuracy of their planning
needs to be addressed to them.  If they screwed up, I am sure we will
hear about it eventually.  Keep in mind that that is 75% of new peak demand
from efficiency, not 75% of supply.  See my recent post about efficiency
My recent post about efficiency will be interesting to skeptics.

Its true that we can't pump this well forever.  With the rapidly
increasing performance of renewables, they may be looking there for
eventual new capacity.  PG&E has a major research project going on
involving PV.  It has two components.  One examines the newest state
of the art usually at a few kw while the other examines more mature
modules for utility scale application, usually at 100's of kw.
>
>>>     As far as 'demand side management' goes, there is only so much we can
>>>     do economically as some seem to always forget. 
>>
>>And just how much do you think we can do?  
>
>     Not better than no power generation (of course we will have
>     lapsed into socioeconomic chaos long before then).
>
DSM usually refers to retrofits that don't require changes in habits
or lifestyle.  This is the difference between conservation and
efficiency.  Efficiency requires new technology with users getting the
same benefits, while conservation requires sacrifices in habits. I am
not against conservation, but efficiency should come first.

>                              dale bass
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:29:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <JMC.92Jul31004008@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> 
	jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>
>The main objection to hunting whales is that many of my fellow
>humans don't like it.

Bravo. Reminds me of that scene in Lawrence of Arabia in which Faisal is
telling the American reporter [paraphrase] - "Lawrence spares the lives of
our prisonsers because he is a humanitarian -- for me, it is simply good
manners.  I leave it to you to decide which is the more reliable motive."
-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10047 sci.physics:11693 sci.energy:3686
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:04:11 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <1992Jul21.160305.6144@alw.nih.gov:, pruss@helix.nih.gov (dmitry pruss) writes:
: In article <1992Jul21.045724.2488@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
: >In article <1992Jul17.232801.905@nmt.edu:, houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
: >: any people who think that waste disposal is a
: >: problem feel that way on a gut instinct -- there is just no safe way to
: >: get rid of something that is as awful as a mixture of radioactive
: >: Strontium,  Technitium,  Plutonium,  etc.
: >Wait a minute!  Why are we disposing of substances like stronium 90 and
: >plutonium?  *RECYCLE* them!  Stronium 90 makes a great heat source for
: >litterally uninterruptable power supplies. 
: For a burnt-out fuel, disposal and recycling are aessentially the same
: thing. The dirtiest procedure of handling/separating isotope mixtures (some
: of the products are volatile, and the whole stuff is very warm, which
: doesn't make the task more pleasant)

Um, I'd say that disposal and recycling are radically different.  Disposal
is simple, toss the entire fuel rod assemblies (is this the right term John?)
into underground mines and bury it.  Recycling is a lot harder, got to
strip off the cladding, dissolve the fuel rods, and seperate out the various
elements.  Why would you want to do this?  Reduction of the final volume of
high level waste to be disposed by an order of magnitude (I still can't find
this graphic, does anyone else know it?  Its a graphic of a cube of uranium
before processing, and several cubes that show the remainders.).  The
remaining uranium and plutonium can be reused in reactors (or bombs if your
suicidal), therefore less uranium needs to be mined.  By seperating out
substances like Sr90, you obtain a long lasting (40 odd years) heat source,
that has no moving parts, no fumes, etc.  Furthermore, Sr90 is the
principal heat source for the first couple of hundred years.  In english
this means one can pack the waste closer together without overheating the
burial zone.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:41:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.030429.26353@cco.caltech.edu>, rkrii@cco.caltech.edu (Roberk Kim Rickenbrode II) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>  {Bowen} Get the picture?
>
>  {Armond} No, I don't.  A 5 minute walk is more than I'm willing to make, as is
>
>  {Bowen} A five minute walk is unreasonable? 
>
>  {Armond} It is for me.  That's my personal choice to make.
>
>
> Not if your personal choice has negative impacts on the lives -- health -- of
>others.  The hazards of high concentrations of automobiles are clearly 
>visible in Los Angeles, where the mountains surrounding the basin 
>frequently disappear in a nauseating brown haze.

Of course, given the abundant natural hydrocarbon sources in the Los Angeles
basin, even without cars it would fail to meet EPA requirements for substantial
parts of the summer.  The Amerindians who lived here hundreds of years ago
didn't call it the Valley of the Smoke for nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<Bs13Bu.tJ@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
	<1992Jul27.103350.22764@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
	<1992Jul30.135046.6924@ke4zv.uucp>
Date: 30 Jul 92 11:36:31

In article <1992Jul30.135046.6924@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   In article <1992Jul27.103350.22764@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
   >Check back; I did qualify that statement. It's actually possible for a 
   >city to have both methods of transportation available: trains to
   >transport the people to work for whom it is convenient, and, stay
   >with me now, roads for those people for whom cars are more convenient
   >or for travelling at odd hours or for women at night or for grocery
   >shopping.... It is permissible to own both a car and a transit pass.

   If it were this simple, no one would be arguing. The reality is that
   transportation is being viewed as a zero sum game with the bulk of the
   funding coming from motorists and going to the benefit of the riders of 
   mass transit. I think that if it were percieved that transit riders
   were bearing the costs of their choice, and motorists the costs of 
   their choice, the arguments would mostly disappear. As long as subsidies
   from motorists to transit riders exists, there is going to be bitterness
   and debate. In many cases the question boils down to freeways *or* transit, 
   and not freeways *and* transit while motorists are expected to bear the
   brunt of the costs in either case.

   Gary

I think Gary exaggerates, perhaps inadvertently, when he says:

     with the bulk of the funding coming from motorists and going
     to the benefit of the riders of mass transit

The lawyers haven't got the bulk of the highway trust fund yet.

On the other hand, adherents of the energy religion really would
like to herd us all into mass transit, because it really would
save energy.  To reject their oppressiveness, it is necessary
to reject their religion and regard saving energy as valuable
only in so far as it saves money, and saving money mostly means
saving human labor.

I remember once saying that energy is only another commodity
at a hearing conducted by an energy bureaucrat in San Francisco
in the 1970s.  I was there with three other Stanford professors,
and when the bureaucrat remarked that most people weren't taking
the view that energy was just another commodity, my fellow
professors hastened to correct me and bow down to the energy god.
I was stunned into silence, but I trust I'm a bit more rambunctioous
now.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:41:58 GMT

In article <0!lm8dl@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft) writes:
>
>>The problems w/ civilan power plants include shoddy workmanship and
>>a total failure to include the projected cost of shutdown in the
>>original bid.
>
>No.  Shoddy workmanship is so rare that you actually hear about each
>case on the news.  Think about that for a moment.  Think about why
>you rarely hear about shoddy workmanship in cars, houses and so on
>in the news.  The cost of decomissioning is collected every day
>as a percentage of revenue generated.
>
Can anyone fill me in on the history of the Fort St. Vrain plant in
CO?  It was shut down before I moved here and is being converted to
natural gas.  I have been told there were "technical problems" and
too much down-time.
>John
>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
>Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
>Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
>jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:45:36 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul27170433@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
#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.
#

And they of course are totally unbiased and accurate in their statement.:)

#--
#John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
#*
#He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
#



Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:21:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.144248.2912@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.204107.16302@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.172027.28257@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
:::The only good thing about malls is that they're air conditioned. The
:::worst thing about malls is you have to walk through them to get to
:::the store you want to patronize. I prefer strip shopping centers 
:::where I can park close to the door of the store where I want to 
:::make a purchase.

::	IF you can find parking, that is.

::	If you have to park far away, then you have to walk as long as
::you would in a shopping mall -- probably longer -- and almost
::certainly across a street or two.

:Not around here anyway. Strip centers have proportionately as much parking
:lot space as enclosed malls with the advantage that the store doors open
:directly on the lot instead of having to go to a Mall entrance and then
:wend your way through a simulated downtown pedestrian way to the store
:you want to patronize. 

	That would be a good objection _only_ if one was guaranteed
parking just in front of whatever store you wanted to shop in. C'mon,
Gary Coffman, what makes you so sure you won't have any competition?

::	And is walking inside a typical shopping mall REALLY that
::terrible a burden???

:It is if your knees are shot and you're buying a heavy item. I will
:admit that I do sometimes go over to the mall and sit and watch the
:girls. (I'm not dead yet) :-) 

	And I thought that you were a blue-collar worker :-)

	And what are shopping carts for, anyway? :-)

	Try visiting a shopping mall or two sometime.

/Loren
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul22.180905.17900@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
	<JMC.92Jul22200100@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul23.151940.8193@vexcel.com>
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:43:21

In article <1992Jul23.151940.8193@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Jul22200100@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >Many of us suspect the environmentalists and environmental
   >bureaucrats, e.g. Mr. Reilly, of wanting to use global warming "as a
   >good excuse and a great opportunity to make fundamental changes in our
   >society that we should be making anyway for other reasons".  The
   >quotation is from what Russell Train said about the "energy crisis"
   >when he was EPA Administrator.  Can anyone assure us that our
   >suspicions are mistaken.
   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
   >*
   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

   I see the threat of global warming as an "additional motivation" to clean
   up some dirty technologies.  If pollution and foreign energy dependence
   are not enough, maybe this risk will be enough to convince some people
   that renewables, efficiency and conservation should be pursued.  The
   only problem with Russell Trains statement is if he hides his other
   reasons.  If he is open about them, then I see no problem with his
   statement.

   Do you claim that his other reasons are hidden or are nefarious in some way?
   -- 

		   dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

I posted his whole speech.  See if you can find his fundamental
changes or his other reasons.

Of course, this may have been mere bombast.  Aside from imposing
substantial costs on the economy, there haven't been any fundamental
changes.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:23:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.181659.26261@csrd.uiuc.edu>, saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
>Maybe JMC would like to check what happened to the Los Angeles, CA,
>public underground rail system, which was bought by such a "tell-tale"
>company? At least LA is in California, and not in Australia.

Last I heard, Los Angeles' first underground rail system is still under
construction, and hasn't been bought out by anybody.  The Red Line was
above-ground.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9901 sci.geo.meteorology:2560 sci.skeptic:13148
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:16:54 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Jul22.180905.17900@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>we can:
>a)  use precedent and restrict people's  freedoms (e.g. noone allowed to 
>      own a car, etc.).
>b)   wait until there is specific knowledge that specific actions are
>     causing real injuries.  At that point restrict peoples freedoms in the
>     least intrusive manner possible to end the injuries.
>
>Socialists choose a) and individualists choose b).
>
>A cliche applicable to a): "2 wrongs don't make a right".

A cliche applicable to b):  "A stitch in time saves nine."

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: slh5087@zeus.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:44:00 GMT

>     I also offer the ground 5200 feet beneath my house as a nuclear
>     material storage repository (subject to regulatory approval and a 
>     appropriate personal fee).  
> 
>                                    dale bass

AMEN!  I also offer my property for consideration for a nuclear material
storage repository, and I'll beat any offer Mr. (Dr.?) Bass makes.

His posting, which I have not contained here, has a theme of *relative*
risk regarding nuclear power, and is most appropriate.  Life is full of
risks.  Some great and some small.  Every one of us takes risks every day
that bring with them a much *greater* chance of our death, etc. than living
near a nuclear power station, or disposing of nuclear materials in our
county, state, country.  Ignorance of these risks, and _perceptions_ that
the risks of nuclear power is more greater than they are, have held this
country back for too long.

Steve
----
Steven L. Hayes, Texas A&M University, Department of Nuclear Engineering
(slh5087@zeus.tamu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
From: edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold)
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 09:22:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul2.103818.41228@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> cromwell@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jun29.180530.11377@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com
>(Nick Szabo) writes: 
>
>
[deleted]
>I like to think of whales and dolphins as a high order intellegence
                    ^^^^^^
>which evolved in harmony with their environment and humans as high

A 'High order of intelligence'???  Perhaps dolphins and some species
of whale (as the Orca) demonstrate intelligence levels roughly equivalent
to a dogs, but most (most - not neccessarily all) are at a level which
is approximately the same as a cow.  A 'high order of intelligence'?
Hardly.

>order intellegence which evolved because of our ability to manipulate
>our environment.
>-- 
>Rick 

Thor
Graduate program, Psychology
University of Bergen
Norway
edmtl@fiol.uib.no


Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:51:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu>, houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.202320.6596@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>  Environmentalists do not advocate coal as an energy source.

  Then what do you advocate in the short term?  I think that some combination
of (hot) fusion power and space-based solar will prevail in the long term,
but we just don't have the technology to switch to either one yet.
  Ground-based solar, wind, and water are very limited.  Use them where
you can, but don't fool yourself into thinking they can carry base load.
And do Sierra Club members really want their beloved deserts covered with
little pink cells? (only mild sarcasm here; I like wild nature too, and
*I* don't want any cells around the areas I backpack in!)

> Therefore, why don't you guys go out and learn a bit about renewables and
> then come back and compare their potential with the potential of nuclear
> power.  One thing you'll discover is that the average American house,
> with average appliances,  has enough roof area for it's electricity needs
> to be met with photovoltaics plus storage in almost all of the lower 48.

  Only trouble is, I don't think private homes are the #1 major user of
power in the U.S.  I welcome correction if someone who has the actual
figures can refute this, but right now I think industry is a bigger user.
Do you realize how much sunny area will be needed to run heavy industry day
in and day out?
 
>   If nuclear power advocates would just give up their luddite-like
> apprehension towards sustainable technologies,  then we might actually
> start developing a sane energy technology for this country and the world.

  I will look at any power-producing technology that is cost effective
and can supply the power our industrial society needs.  I will NOT cut
back on the amount of power I use.  Conservation is great, but it does
have limits.  And the population grows apace...

  -Keith <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy