HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:38:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.111618.1455@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:

>Finally we get to the point.  
>Most of the worlds oil is the oil which is cheap to get out of the ground.
>Kevin is right in saying that if someone is willing to pay for it
>we will continue to pump that which is more expensive to drill.
>But the point of running out is that most of all oil in the world
>is not the shale oil or the small, or more expensive pockets.  Most
>of all oil is the huge reserves that are now known.  Even if we
>find another field the size of Alaska, It will only supply
>the U.S. appetite for 6 months.

	I was doing some reading the other day and found that the estimated
resources of oil shale contain over two orders of magnitude more energy than
what is in oil,  coal,  and natural gas combined.  Now,  it might not be
economically,  socially,  or environmentally acceptable to exploit it, but
it is a resource of staggering size.

	I also just read an article in "R&D" magazine that claims that the
cost of wind power is about 7 cents/kWh and expects the cost to drop to
5 cents/kWh next year...  At which point wind becomes directly competitive
with coal without considering externalities.  The article claims that about
20% of US electricity demand (I assume they mean current demand,  because
they didn't specify) would probably be the upper limit of what could be
reasonably generated by wind.  The article suggested that about 10% of energy
will come from wind 20 years from now.  The article also had some interesting
material about the engineering of wind machines.  Utility scale wind machines
generate on the order of 100 kW and have a projected lifetime of 30 years;
and this seems to be about the optimal size.

	This suggests that renewables (other than hydro) are just on the
verge of being able to displace fossil fuels on a fairly large scale.



--
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:29:15 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep4.140020.14770@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <52907@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>
>>Gosh, it must be a conspiracy. Quick, let's get the disinterested 
>>scientists and public relations experts from GE and B&W to help rescue
>>us from these dangerous forces.
>
>Be sure you don't blind yourself with your own sarcasm.  Disenchanted 
>("disinterested"?  why would you use that word?) scientists *have* left
>the nuclear industry or R&D community to join the anti-nuclear crowd, and 
>many do make you wonder just why they left their previous job in the first 
>place.

Moral qualms? In any event,  I wonder whether you apply the same standards
of skepticism and suspicion to the pronouncements of paid nuclear lobbyists
and employees of the nuclear industry. I would be very surprised if any 
Greenpeace employees were paid at the same rate as GE's lobbyists.

>But they don't have to come from the "nuclear" side of the fence.  As an
>undergrad I once went to the offices of an "environmental research" group to
>demand they reimburse me with the mandatory donation deducted from my     
>registration fees.  They wanted to know why, and I told them I didn't think
>they did adequate research, citing as example their frequent, unbalanced 
>use of information from a prominent Toronto anti-nuclear group -- and, in
>particular, the fellow who calls himself their "nuclear researcher".
>
>"But...," they objected, "he's a PhD in Physics!"
>
>"Exactly," I answered (I did not know if this were true or not), "then he
>should know better than to say what he says."  I got my money.

If only I could get similar results on my involuntary subsidy of pro
nuclear propaganda via my electricity rates. When I see that picture
of Yankee Rowe in the New York Times full page ads, it really annoys me
that not only do I have to pay rates for an inefficient and dangerous
piece of junk, but I also have to help pay for duplicitous advertising
which is intended to sell more of these things to the public.

>This started me thinking about the consequences of a person of perceived 
>credibility, such as a doctor or scientist, spreading dogma and having it   
>received as gospel by a gullible public.  You see this every day on the 

Exacly the thoughts I had when NRC spokesmen told the citizens of the
Rowe Charlemont area that a breach of containment was "impossible"
at Yankee Rowe because its containment structure had been specifically
designed to handle reactor vessel breaches. And, when the NRC folks
started confidently trotting out failure probabilities with no caveats
about the very shaky science underyling these numbers, it also makde
me wonder about the effects of authoritative figures using scientific
language to mislead.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re:
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:30:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL


 As far as wind power in upstate New York, it's not going to suffer from 
lack of resource (especially near Albany...). Anyhow, with the Great Lakes
and all, there is a lot of weather activity. Thing is, most of the 
energetic weather is nasty. I hope they have some sort of plan to deal with
icing. The eastern end of Lake Ontario gets worse snow and ice storms than
Buffalo, where I grew up (or didn't).

 Niagara Mohawk does all right on its hydro business. I wonder if they 
will be able to make money on a resource that doesn't fall right on top of
them.
-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Wind Farms  (was: Re: rad
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:29:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

To: zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Zika)

MZ>Apparently, many citizens felt threatened by
MZ>the technology...

MZ>  Kinda makes you wonder if the Nebraska ranchers will start NIMBY movement
MZ>against wind farms...

Up until the mid-thirties many farms and ranches harvested the wind to
make electricity, mainly for their own use. The Montgomery Ward and
Sears mail-order catalogs had many pages devoted to the generators,
propellors, towers, batteries, controllers, etc, as well as complete
systems. They wanted to sell the farmers these systems so they could
also sell them refrigerators, washing machines, vacumn cleaners and
such. Those were, also, the days when a high percentage of the
population lived on farms.

But the New Deal came along and established the the Rural Electrifi-
cation Authority (REA) which financed the building of a vast distri-
bution system which hooked the farms up to the grid to the great benefit
of the coal industry and coal fired utilities. The windpower industry
sorta dried up. However, these types of small systems are still
available for use in very remote areas.

With that background and the fact that most farms and ranches still use
wind pumps to obtain water from an aquifer, there will be little
cultural resistance to windfarms now that they have become competitive,
especially when the farmers can earn a bundle harvesting the wind and
still have their land available for agriculture.

Although I could not find it listed in any reference, "60 Minutes" ran a
segment recently stating the REA was still in business, mainly
financing golf courses and country clubs. Just one small example of the
many "Welfare for the rich" programs hidden in the national budget.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a
From: sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: radation
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:46:46 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


Preface:  I'm strongly in favor of renewables/alternative energy
sources.  However, I don't think windpower can grow to the size that
Nate does.

}} In article <4VB0PB3w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us> nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn) writes:
}} 
}} What bothers me is that there is TONS of wind out there and every
}} house is really a wind site!
}}
}} If everyone had a backyard wind generator (or even a roof top one,
}} too bad they aren't in "style"), then all our worries would be
}} over.

There are legal and practical issues involved in where one can site a
windmill.  For example, I cannot put my windmill upwind of yours and
have yours be useful.  The turbulence caused by my windmill will
damage yours.  Thus, if you think of a residential neighborhood, it is
not likely that every house can have its own windmill.

Also, not all sites in the US are conducive to windpower.  When I
studied the subject 2 years ago, one needed an average wind speed of
7-10 knots for the practical generation of electricity.  There has
been some work put into turbines that work at lower speeds, but as Tom
Gray has pointed out, most of the research into windpower has gone
into larger-scale units than those that would be useful for a single
family dwelling.

sjc@cs.purdue.edu               Steve Chapin           Today's Grammar Lesson:
                    ect. is meaningless; etc. == et cetera

             "Home is the place where, when you have to go there,
                          They have to take you in."
               			-- Robert Frost, "The Death of the Hired Man"
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Subject: Re: Wind Farms
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  3 Sep 1992 12:34 EST  

On the reliability of wind powered pumps:

I've used hand powered well-water pumps that have got to be quite a bit 
older than me (i.e. over 30 years old).  As far as I know, they don't 
require any maintenance, except for the occasional replacement of the 
leather "piston ring" (also why they must be primed, the seal dries out).

Compare the reliability of a typical car engine with that of its starter 
motor.  With proper maintenance, which lasts longer?  Hell, even with 
improper maintenance, the "old days" big 3 cars would outlast their 
starters N to 1.

How many moving parts are in a wind powered pump?  I'd guess about 4.  One 
moving part in a motor driven pump, if you assume the impeller is basically 
part of the shaft.  I'd guess the biggest problem in either would be the 
seal leaking.

Mike Jamison 
From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:36:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Econ a science? Was Re: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

 |>(BC):
 |>Even us hardened Eco-Nazis would just as soon avoid disaster, if possible,
 |>even if that means that our "predictions" turn out to have been exaggerated.
 |
 |MS:
 |The problem with this argument (the whole thing, not just the last few
 |lines in this post...) is that it will degenerate into a parade of 
 |failed predictions vs. a paradeof accurate ones.  The 'bottom line' is
 |that MANY predictions fail, and many are right on the money.  So the 
 |prudent thing to do is look at the QUALITY of the predictions.
 |

This was exactly the point I was trying to make. Let's look at the
actual predictions/projections, rather than just rejecting (or believing)
them a priori.

re: The argument for infinite human ingenuity:

It's true that solutions, of some sort, have been found for many historical
problems which seemed intractable at the time. Predicting Gloom and Doom (TM)
by projecting current trends doesn't *deny* that solutions can/will be found.
It's part of the process of *finding* solutions. A form of market analysis,
if you will. It's hard to fix a problem if you don't even know you *have*
a problem.

Bo Curry
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: radation
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:17:42 GMT

In article <19373@ector.cs.purdue.edu> sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:
>
>Preface:  I'm strongly in favor of renewables/alternative energy
>sources.  However, I don't think windpower can grow to the size that
>Nate does.

>}} What bothers me is that there is TONS of wind out there and every
>}} house is really a wind site!
>}}
>}} If everyone had a backyard wind generator (or even a roof top one,
>}} too bad they aren't in "style"), then all our worries would be
>}} over.

>Also, not all sites in the US are conducive to windpower.  When I
>studied the subject 2 years ago, one needed an average wind speed of
>7-10 knots for the practical generation of electricity.  There has
>been some work put into turbines that work at lower speeds, but as Tom
>Gray has pointed out, most of the research into windpower has gone
>into larger-scale units than those that would be useful for a single
>family dwelling.

	Right now the focus on windpower development is on machines that
generate on the order of 100-300 kW in wind farms.  Since a wind farm is
compatible with other land uses (grazing,  just about any form of
agriculture that isn't center-pivot),  there are few barriers as to the
land-use aspect of windpower.  One can imagine situations where (a) windpower
producers lease "wind rights" from public lands,  or (b)  windpower producers
lease "wind rights" from private landowners,  and (c)  ranchers and farmers
lease whatever rights are appropriate from windpower producers that own the
land.  Who knows?  It's even possible that a private landowner might decide to
make the capital investment in turbines and sell electricity to a utility.

	There are vast rangelands in Nebraska and other parts of the US where,
if we can lower the cost of windpower,  we can seriously envision producing a
significant amount of electricity.  So far as producing power in decentralized
environments (in your home,  your yacht,  etc.),  photovoltaics look like the
way to go,  since a PV system requires low maintenance and has no moving
parts.  Like windpower,  photovoltaics just need a reduction in cost to
increase competitiveness.

	As I mentioned before,  the last (August 1992) issue of "R&D" magazine
had a really interesting article on windpower that had some really interesting
material on the engineering of wind machines.  I'd reccomend that anyone who
is interested should take a look.
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn)
Subject: radation
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 07:27:14 GMT

I picked up a geiger counter (spelling?) at the swapmeet for $15
it need a new sensor cable and is now fine.
 
Anyway, it's kinda nice to have. I put it up to my smoke detector
as close as possible and it read slightly over what I pick up
if it's just stiinig around (even sitting outside or wherever).
 
Most people probably don't know but the thing really picks up
quite a bit just sitting around, so there's alot of natural stuff out
there.
 
I would say not to worry about it, the device inside is somewhat
sheilded anyway, so not much gets out.
 
I found a old guy who had on one of those old "glow in the dark"
watches he has been wearing for 30 years, it doesn't glow very
good anymore anyway.
 
I had to turn the meter way DOWN X100 SCALE to get a reading!!
 
That means he was producing way more just walking past you than
you would ever get if you stuck the stupid smoke detector up
your butt for a WEEK!
 
SO that settles that (I hope?)
 
------------------------------------------
 
OIL:
 
If you live near some oil pumps you will notice that they only go
up and down when the price of a barrel of crude goes UP.
 
What I mean is that these guys turn them OFF when the price is too
low, causing a sort of "price fixing".
 
What bothers me is that there is TONS of wind out there and every
house is really a wind site!
 
If everyone had a backyard wind generator (or even a roof top one,
too bad they aren't in "style"), then all our worries would be
over.
 
Imagine if we all drove electrics, and if each person had a plug
placed near the street, and when you have extra power a little green 
light comes on on top of the plug, telling anyone that you have extra 
power that they can have , then if you ever ran out in your car you just 
pull ove and get some. Everyone helps everyone else, I have
a electric, so do you so I halp you, you help me.
 
Too bad people have to be so greedy!! I am really tired of this stupid
greed, when you get to where you are living OK, why do people need
more, more, more???
 
Anyway, you guys need to know about "Home Power Magazine", its great!
 
Here's where to write to:
 
Home Power Magazine
POB 130
Hornbrook, CA 96044       (916) 475-3179
 
Talk about a source for some really good power stuff.
 
How would you like a refridge that draws only 60 WATTS when its running?
(a 19 cu ft!!)
 
The "best" refridge I have found draws about 700 watts when its running!
(20 cu ft), and yours probably is on now, and drawing 300 watts min!
 
You can find out that and more in Home Power, I recomend it highly!
 
Nate...
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4117 sci.environment:10843
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:05:12 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug24.160349.17212@kbsw1> chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes:
>
>Just to pick a nit, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if plant growth
>went up in the oceans as atmospheric CO2 goes up. Over in the *.aquaria
>groups there are articles about how to use a CO2 fertilizer system
>to make your plants REALLY grow.

CO2 is not the limiting factor in oceanic plant growth. Nitrates, and
surprisingly, iron are the major limiting nutrients in the ocean. The
open ocean is a desert in many places. Only where nutrient upwellings
occur is there vigorous life. Some CO2 forcing can occur in otherwise 
nutrient rich ecologies, such as grasslands, but not significantly so 
on a sustained basis as other limits are quickly approached. 

Gary
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:29:43 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep3.133036.25840@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <JYM.92Sep1181648@remarque.mica.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>
>>>> General luddism.  Nuclear applications are new.
>>
>>=\= Pro-nuke advocates are always bringing this up, but I must
>>say that I've never met even one anti-nuke advocate who was
>>actually motivated by Luddism.  Not a single one.
>
>Come on now.  Of course if you walked into an anti-nuke demonstration and 
>asked around if anyone was a Luddite, or if anyone had a fear of technology, 
>you'd find no-one.  If you asked the anti-automobile crowd at the turn of the
>century you'd also find no-one.  If you asked the anti-vaccination,      
>anti-airplane, anti-immunization, anti-genetic engineering, anti-steam power,
>anti-electric light bulb, anti-pasteurization, anti-space travel,     
>anti-blood transfusion, anti-X-ray, or any anti-<new technology> crowd over
>the last century of so, you'd likewise find few who outright expressed a
>fear of technology.  Unless, of course, you looked deeper.

And what about if you looked "deeper" into the motives of those who
are against wind and solar technolgies? 

>>=\= I've been in anti-nuclear groups since the days of the
>>Clamshell Alliance, and I can't think of anyone who's used the
>>issue to get money and power. 
>
>Anyone who works for an anti-nuclear group -- especially those hired 
>full-time -- is reaping the benefits of public fear over nuclear power.
>I could name quite a few individuals who draw salaries by travelling the 
>country impugning nuclear power.  Sincere or not, they are gaining both
>money and power from fanning the flames.
>
>As for sincerity -- when you hear some of the most disgusting lies and
>half-truths about the availability of waste disposal technology, the 
>toxicity of Plutonium, the abilities of plant operators, the integrity
>of pool storage, the effects of TMI, and even the facts of documented
>historical events which any child could look up, coming from the mouths
>of supposed scientists, you start to wonder about that too.

Gosh, it must be a conspiracy. Quick, let's get the disinterested 
scientists and public relations experts from GE and B&W to help rescue
us from these dangerous forces.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Zika)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Wind Farms  (was: Re: radation)
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:20:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug30.001742.9819@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <19373@ector.cs.purdue.edu> sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:
>
>	There are vast rangelands in Nebraska and other parts of the US where,
>if we can lower the cost of windpower,  we can seriously envision producing a
>significant amount of electricity.

  Any thoughts out there on what the Nebraska residents think of this idea?

  In a recent discussion with somebody who has studied publice relations,
she mentioned an interesting observation.  The moves to shut down nuke plants,
incinerators, waste disposal sites (both toxic _and_ non-toxic), etc.
have something in common.  Most of the residents were not necessarily against
nuclear power, incineration or any of the above.  Rather, the movement
was _against_ _technology_.  Apparently, many citizens felt threatened by
the technology...

  Kinda makes you wonder if the Nebraska ranchers will start NIMBY movement
against wind farms...


-- 
                                     |
Michael Zika (zika@ecn.purdue.edu)   |    Hey don't ask me "why?",
Purdue University                    |    I'm still working on "how?" ! 
School of Nuclear Engineering        |
Newsgroups: sci.energy