HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Followup-To: talk.environment
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 01:37:47 GMT

The movie is "Survival in the High North" made by Magnus Gudmundsson.

I read a report that Greenpeace International is closing its operations in
Norway because of a loss of members.  The report that I read stated that the
chairman of Norwegian Greenpeace, Bjoern Oekern resigned and stated that
Gudmundsson was right about Greenpeace's fund raising tactics, and that none
of Greenpeace's money was used for "environmental protection" and that 
Greenpeace was an "ecofascist" group.  Oekern was on the board of Greenpeace
International.
--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | A life consisting exclusively of things
Boulder, CO                    | that are Good for You is bad for you.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |                      Kelvin Throop
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Definition of "Short Trip"
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:35:50
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1993Jan17.172955.12468@ke4zv.uucp> <Jym.24Jan1993.1807@naughty-peahen>
	<1993Jan27.154945.15317@ke4zv.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gary@ke4zv.uucp's message of Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:49:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.154945.15317@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   In article <Jym.24Jan1993.1807@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
   >>> 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_>


   One *could* say that if one accepted as given that most auto
   trips are of the order of 6 miles. But since that is incorrect,
   the statement would be incorrect. The average miles driven per
   auto per year in the US is roughly 12,000. That leads to an average 
   daily travel of about 33 miles. As an example, I drive about 60 miles
   a day in two 30 mile trips. I'm above the national average and
   there are those below the average, but 6 miles is *way* below
   the average.

doesn't follow Gary. How many "trips" per day does the average
auto make?
Also, even though the mean is 33m/d that does not mean that
_most_ trips are near the mean, the distribution is probably
quite skewed - for example for a while my mean daily travel
was dominated by occasional trips of few hundred miles
while my modal trip was under five miles.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy from space Sustain Future
Date: 25 Jan 1993 23:54:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: huey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <8442@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alany@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Alan Yelvington) writes:
]So help me, if one of those things ever get tried,
]it'll turn a schoolyard into a fried chicken
]exhibition.

Oh come on! As a certain professor once said: you have the numbers to
back up that claim?

Cough em up, or I'll just conclude you are another person who relies more
on hype than facts. 


-- 
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Patrick Chester                             wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
|"If the Earth is our Cradle, then why are we still here?"             |
|Everything your side says is Truth. All else is Propaganda....        |
|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:09:18 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <1993Jan21.155144.18673@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>In article <51885@seismo.CSS.GOV>, stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

>> Third, if you're really worried about it, buy a motorcycle.  You can take
>> them on any roads, they often have better range than cars, they are way

And you can pay more for insurance (if you can get it) and take an
inordinate risk of bodily damage in accidents.  (BTW, I have a
motorcycle licence and have owned motorcycles from time to time. I'm
not afraid of them, but I do have respect for the carnage involved
in motorcycle use ... not everyone may be so brave as to ride a bike, 
or stupid, depending on point of view.)

I have never met a motorcycle with a longer range than a car.  Period.
There may be one, but the ones I've ridden got about 100-200 miles to
the tank of gas.  Cars tend to get 350-450.

>> more fuel efficient and far less expensive than any car.

They are only less expensive if you ignore the medical bills ... 

>A motorcycle is no better than a bicycle during the winter months up here in
>Idaho.  Everyone I know with motorcycles put them away for 7 to 8 months a 
>year here in Idaho.  You really fail to grasp the affect winter weather has 
>on people and their choices for autos up here in the Rocky Mountain states.

This was brought home to me by a friend in Idaho who pointed out one
simple fact of winter life.  He had to bring his car battery into
the appartment when not using the car because the SULPHURIC ACID in
it would FREEZE and break the battery if he didn't.

Think about it.  Does the phrase 50 degrees F below zero mean 
anything?

>Plus, a motorcycle is more like a hobby for those people living in the
>Rockies.

Even in the warm toasty central valley of California, I've frozen
my butt off in winter.  Doing 50 MPH in a 33 F rain for a half hour
will convince you real quick that bikes are a summer passion...
and even then, only for a select few who are willing to accept
the risk to life and limb and don't mind bugs in the {teeth, hair,
cloths,...}.  Or did you forget about all the grandmas and gandpas 
and mommies with babes in arms?...

>> The fact that the problems you pose are so easy to solve only strengthens
>> my resolve in this matter.  I really think that a big gas tax could be
>> instituted that would work great and not unfairly affect anyone.

There is NO tax that does not unfairly affect SOMEONE.
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Real vs Govt Energy costs (Re: Roads and Taxes)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:29:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.174753@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>
>Hmmm, I think I agree with these points, and would add that in the USA
>where they have allowed market forces to govern things to a large
>extent(though it's not perfect), it has allowed utilities who have
>spotted new ways to make money to go ahead with their ideas. For example
>there have been several cases of utilities realising that instead of
>producing new electricity, it was cheaper to subsidise energy efficient
>technology to their users, and use the energy saved for other purposes.
>Also there are many utilities now operating on least cost planning, 
>which encourages energy efficiency over new supply, and those that are
>sensitive to their environmental image can rightly point out that doing
>these things leads to less pollution overall. In Britain it would be 
>interesting to see the result of a publicly owned grid whose mandate
>was to supply electricity from the cheapest sources, according to
>least cost guidelines, whilst allowing any company to produce
>plans for supplying the demand for electrical services and make bids
>for contracts based on those plans. Such planning has had interesting 
>results in the US, see particularly the example of the Southern
>California Edison company which gave free quadruple efficiency bulbs to
>it's low income customers and their neighbourhood shops, because it was
>cheaper than generating the required extra electricity.

Now wait a minute James. Residential electricity is priced at the
highest rate, it should offer the highest profit per unit of production
since it's retail sales rather than wholesale. Utilities are regulated 
monopolies, however, not free market entities. If they were free market 
entities, it would make no business sense whatsoever to *pay* your 
highest profit customers to use less of your product. Instead what 
has happened is that government regulators have *decreed* that 
residential electricity use be subsidized. Thus utilities are starting
to *lose money* on residential customers because of distribution costs
and *restrictions* on pricing. Therefore, selling *at a loss* is minimized 
by paying customers not to buy. This is completely alien to the free market
and most emphatically does *not* show that paying customers not to buy
is cheaper than selling them the product at a profit.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:33:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <C1Fooy.8x5@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com> tdean@makedustuswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:

|In article <30539@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:
|> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >Here is the crux of the problem.  You people in government think you know
|> >more than us mere citizens and therefore have some kind of right to deny
|> >us choice.  Bastards.  The thing that makes me so mad is I cannot come
|> >up with a way short of an armed revolution to root you people out.
|> >Maybe it must come to that.  Frankly, fuck you and your government
|> >energy policies.  Richard, maybe if you'd drop the .gov off your
|> >address and substitute a .com, you'd understand.
|> 
|> >John
|> 
|> That's what get's me about Libertarians in the USA. They think the world
|> owes them a living, and that anybody who gets in their way ought to be
|> shot.

|I don't quite believe this is accurate. Most Libertarians merely want 
|to be left alone to make their own living. They are just tired of 
|paying for "Welfare for the Middle Class" that many gov't and regulated
|agencies effectively have become.

This is definitely not accurate, and indicates a lack of critical
thinking ability on the part of the authour.

|> 
|> Two things for you to think about
|> 
|> 1) Americans pay less tax per head than any of the other G7 Nations

|I am no longer completely convinced of this. With 15.75 % Socialist
|insecurity, 23% Fed, another dose of state, local, hidden, (alcohol,
|gas, postal funds being re-routed, 7% sales in some places we can now
|give the G7 countries a good run for the money :-) If we pay less than
|any one of them, its still too close to some of them for my financial comfort.

Don't forget that many countries pay for things through their taxes that
we pay for individually, like health care.
-- 
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
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 22:53:28 GMT

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. 

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:42:08 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <=b-s+b=@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:

>>And what about the people who can't afford cars? You know, those same
>>working poor that will fair so badly under a gas tax. 

>Oh, my heart's breaking.  This is such a stale tactic.  You people on
>the Big Government side of the equation seem to always roll out the 
>poor when it is convenient to your argument.  Then, of course, you roll
>'em back to the ghetto when you no longer need them.
...
>The fact is the working poor already pay little income tax because 
>of current exemptions.  What this lovely gas tax advocated by Stead and
>presumably yourself would do is force the poor out of their cars
>because their real cost of transportation becomes more than they can
>afford.  That's your real goal, isn't it?  Keep 'em down in the ghetto
>where they can't cause too much trouble and can't add to the road
>congestion.  Such hypocrisy is disgusting.

John, John, John ... I'm disgusted with you.  How could you assert
that the goal was to keep them down in the ghetto?  Everyone KNOWS
that the goal is to force them into busses so that they can be bussed 
to minium wage jobs and back like the blacks in South Africa.  
The goal is to extract the maximum labor (and taxes!) from the poor 
slave pool with the minimum consumption.  You only addressed the 
consumption side and completely missed the production side.  
Shame on you!  1/2 ;-)

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press rele
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 20:16:50 GMT

In article <5743.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) writes:
>  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.

Tell me how much electricity was produced for Americans by Love Canal, 
Hanford, and Chernobyl.      

None. 

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:57:28 GMT

In article <C17wM1.4zy@encore.com> wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
>
>So where is everyone going to drive those cars, John? Can they double the
>number of lanes on I-75 through downtown Atlanta once more? Are you
>willing to pay the bill for that project?

Actually, GA DOT *has* a plan. They intend to double deck the connector.
They're also building an outer perimeter 16 miles further out than I-285
to divert more through traffic around downtown. They've even finally
solved the lawsuits against the Presidential Parkway and construction
is back on track. The new GA-400 extension is also back on track after
being converted to a state of the art tollway. You gotta love a politically
untouchable DOT with asphalt in their blood.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy storage using a spring
Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:34:47 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 <1993Jan24.183917.63128@cc.usu.edu>, sls3x@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>
>        I was just wondering if anyone has calculated the energy
>storage capacity of a large spring.  Could it be useful in a car?

Sure.  Springs make the ride in a car much more comfortable.

Oh, you meant as a PRIME MOVER.

No.  Please see the discussion of flywheel storage that's been going on in this
newsgroup for the last couple of months for details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.energy:7177 talk.environment:5678
From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Real vs Govt Energy costs (Re: Roads and Taxes)
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:47:53 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <30755@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:
# Now I believe that we should reduce our use of coal as fast as possible,
# but the German approach while it may seem to cost more, prevents massive
# social disturbance (with all that entails in terms of health and social
# problems).
# 
# As one who in his his early teenage years was a raving leftie, I view
# ideology (whether of the right or the left) as a hinderance to
# government. I would argue that Labour policies of Nationalisation and
# thereby centralisation of the UK energy industries resulted in a sytem
# that was moribund and resistant to change. However, even though I
# initially was fiercely critical of the policy of privatisation of the
# energy industries to begin with, I would now argue that they have not gone
# far enough, and that we have merely substituted a government monoply for
# private duopolies. And further that the govt has let privatisation
# abrogate its resposibilities (yes govt must have responsibilities
# otherwise there is no point in having it).
# 
# Chris 

Hmmm, I think I agree with these points, and would add that in the USA
where they have allowed market forces to govern things to a large
extent(though it's not perfect), it has allowed utilities who have
spotted new ways to make money to go ahead with their ideas. For example
there have been several cases of utilities realising that instead of
producing new electricity, it was cheaper to subsidise energy efficient
technology to their users, and use the energy saved for other purposes.
Also there are many utilities now operating on least cost planning, 
which encourages energy efficiency over new supply, and those that are
sensitive to their environmental image can rightly point out that doing
these things leads to less pollution overall. In Britain it would be 
interesting to see the result of a publicly owned grid whose mandate
was to supply electricity from the cheapest sources, according to
least cost guidelines, whilst allowing any company to produce
plans for supplying the demand for electrical services and make bids
for contracts based on those plans. Such planning has had interesting 
results in the US, see particularly the example of the Southern
California Edison company which gave free quadruple efficiency bulbs to
it's low income customers and their neighbourhood shops, because it was
cheaper than generating the required extra electricity.

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: cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:51:02 GMT

tdean@makedustuswest.com (Tony Dean) writes:


>Not necessarily. Gov't is not the only perveyor of infrastructure. When
>we get good work at a reasonable return on investment thats good. When
>we get slipshod, corrupt, poorly managed, and unnecessary projects
>it is bad. There is far too much "BAD" in many of our buracracies. Some
>ppl are simply tired of it.


Fine! I'm also tired of bad government. I'm just tired of people who
complain about bad government voting for parties who practice bad
government.


Chris
Newsgroups: sci.energy