HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: British Petroleum Tanker Disaster Policy:  "Keep our Heads Down"
Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:52:48 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 <Greenpeace.24Jan1993.2203@naughty-peahen>, Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>
>GREENPEACE CONDEMNS OIL INDUSTRY POLICY OF
>"KEEPING HEADS DOWN" OVER TANKER DISASTERS
>
>LONDON 14 January 1993 (GP) Top BP managers advised staff to
>"keep their heads down" over the Braer oil tanker disaster
>last week, Greenpeace revealed today.

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

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

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.
From: cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Real vs Govt Energy costs (Re: Roads and Taxes)
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:25:33 GMT

>In article <30539@castle.ed.ac.uk> cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:


>>
> Something else to consider: Look at the shambles that government-ownership
>has done to the UK's industrial system: The airlines, the oil and coal firms
>...need I say more?

I would argue that the shambles in the UK is because we've been ruled by
a party that believes there is no such thing as good government, so
doesn't bother. Moreover, the cabinet as far as I know has not got two
science degrees to rub together, and thus tend to make scientific
decisions on dubious idealogical grounds. 

For example compare one aspect of the UK energy policy with the German
Govts policy. The Germans say we want to phase out coal because it will
become uneconomic, its environmentally unfriendly, etc. So what do they
do?

They tell there coal producing regions that coal will be run down over a
number of years, giving these regions time to use the income they
receive to plan for alternatives. They subsidise the coal produced to
enable these regions to do this. In the meantime they take steps to
limit the environemntal impacts of coal, by encouraging CHPs etc.

What do the British do?

They systematically run down the coal industry (in under ten years), 
the most recent example the announcement to close thirty pits within
six months (!) therby destroying the local economies (See the example of
South Wales).
Admittedly this has been part of long term trend in the decline of the
use of coal, however this does not excuse hamfisttedness.
And the UK now imports (!!!) millions of tonnes of coal from abroad,
despite the fact we have massive reserves of our own.
All in the name of the free market.

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
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: 21 Jan 93 15:10:18 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan20.234321.28329@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.175726.467@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>>In article <C0qsD6.MuB@dcs.ed.ac.uk> jh@dcs.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>>>you are aware of just how much evidence Greenpeace has?
>>You are aware of just how often they make severe errors in their press 
>>releases?
>
>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!!")

Obviously, the Greenpeace release was concerned with the industrial use
of  chlorine. FYI, table salt is not generally manufactured in an industrial
process from chlorine. Knowledge of a chemical formula
is often not adequate to understand a manufacturing process. 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:25:18 GMT

In article <1k3503INN29k@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>Jeremy:  Did GreenHype mention *ANY* time frame at all in their commercial?

No time frame was mentioned in the news coverage that I saw of the press
conference.  I've been having difficulties getting more information from 
Greenpeace Canada themselves, but when I do find out their methodology I'll 
report it.

In my opinion, referring to this media stunt as a "commercial" is not far from
the truth (although it was just a press conference).  The rhetoric and style
were typical snake-oil fare, and this is, after all, one way such groups 
raise contributions.

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: smog in Pittsburgh
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:58:49 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ofNf7MW00iUxI1qkpT@andrew.cmu.edu> rc4x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert Courson) writes:

|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.

This is several years old.  The year before it and the year after it
Atlanta was on top.  For the latest year they picked some city in
Colorado I believe.
-- 
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: morrison@cs.uiuc.edu (Vance Morrison)
Subject: Re: Energy-buster device info wanted
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:55:13 GMT

RALPH H. LOCKLIN <RHL@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>I've seen this device (priced at ~$79) in several catalogues.  It seems to
>be some kind of power filter that somehow makes electric motors more
>efficient.  A recommended use is for refrigerators where the payback in
>reduced power usage is about 1 year for older models and about 3 years for
>later models of refrigerators.

>Has anyone used these devices?  Do they work?  Is the payback realistic?

Yes, I know about them.  They do in fact work, although you should be
able to get one that does a refigerator sized load for about $20.
(Check the ads in Nuts+Volts, it you are really desperate I can look
it up).  

These devices work by providing detecting when the motor is lightly
loaded, and reduces the voltage.   Now normally the motor would do 
accomplish the same thing by the back EMF of the windings that 
occurs under light loaded conditions, but the motor controler does
a better job and thus will reduce IR losses at low load.

Thus the best place to use these things are with motors that are 
lightly loaded most of the time.  Unfortuately such motors are not
common around the house.  Luckily, you still get some benefit from
motors run at high load (refigerator compressors, A/C etc) because
motors are always derated a but.  Thus these motors are typically run
at 90% absolute maximum, and thus this device can help a bit.  Since
Refigerators are on a lot (1/3 the time?) this small amount can add up.  

I have heard claims of up to 20%, but frankly I would not expect better
than 5% savings.  (The older the motor the more you will save).  I
think I figured out that the payback for a $20 device for me was somewhere
about 3-5 years.  

If you are interested in this there is a Popular Electronics article
(October 79) that tells you the theory and how to build one.

Vance
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7321 talk.environment:5802
From: 471-1@jane.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Definition of "Short Trip"
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:31:48 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

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.
>
>Gary
>-- 

 Sorry Gary but I don't buy your logic on this one. Just because the
average miles driven per year per auto is 12,000 that doesn't mean that
the average SHORT TRIP is greater than 6 miles. In the 12,000 mile
average is LONG TRIPS also, like when one takes a drive to Phoenix
from Tucson. SO lets try to talk about short trips not yearly averages.

PEACE
      

-- 
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7264 talk.environment:5765
From: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: N-Plants in Eastern Europe
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:55:37 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

In article <1993Jan25.200825.13698@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <Jym.24Jan1993.2304@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>=o= The first is that nuclear power is very costly, and that
>>the money spent on it could more effectively be used for
>>alternate energy strategies.  It seems to me that the World
>>Bank's analysis (referred to this latest press release) adds
>>support to this argument.
>
>"I'm sorry, Jandik, we can't give your family any electricity or hot
>water, but here's a nice solar cooker you can prop up in the snow."

"Hey Jandik, instead of us building a new power station, we'll give you
some energy efficient lights and a more efficient fridge. Also we'll
insulate your house and put in double glazing. And guess what, this will
half you energy bill!"

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: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:34:49 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <59049@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.093901.13563@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

>>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.

In the worlds of Dr. McCoy "My God, man " didn't you ever take an
organic chemistry class?  Heck, start with swimming pool acid, bleach,
and road salt, then work your way up to pickling acid in metal working
and end with a few hundred key reactions that use organochlorines as
intermediaries...

It is hard for me to decide which would be more damaging, elimination
of chlorine or elimination of sulphuric acid...

-- 

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,talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: N-Plants in Eastern Europe
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 18:22:43 GMT

In article <Jym.24Jan1993.2304@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
 And so it would seem that a major argument against nuclear
>power in the West applies just as well in Eastern Europe:  the
>more centralized a power source is, the less control people have
>over their own lives.

I don't think that this is quite right. It is easy to point out cases
that at least superficially contradict this; for instance, a canyon in
Arizona that was only hooked to the grid last summer, and whose
occupants *specifically* commented on the increased control it would
allow them to have over their lives.

The problem here is that control comes on many different levels.
Cheap, central power gives people freedom and self-control in many of
the smaller details of life. At the same time, it reduces their
control over larger scale issues, and also fosters a dependency highly
isomorphous to the one that welfare critics complain about.

The conflict between centralized efficiency and local control is, I
think, going to be one of the great issues of the first half of the
21st century. We have supported the decreased cost and increased
efficiency of centralization ever since the Enlightenment, and perhaps
before that. We are slowly becoming aware of some of the costs of that
approach, yet the way to find a balance between the two seems out of
reach.

-- paul
-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean;    | Militant Agnostic
distorted rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than| I Don't Know
articulated; both-and rather than either-or; the difficult  |   and You Don't
unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. |   Know Either
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7132 talk.environment:5646
From: 471-1@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Energy Strategy and Global Warming
Keywords: energy efficiency CO2 abatement cost effective
Date: 22 Jan 93 06:18:57 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1993Jan21.230554.28718@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>
>But Greenpeace grossly condradicts itself on this issue.
>
>Greenpeace says:
>1. CHP can double (or more) the efficiency by sending waste heat to nearby
>   city buildings (and it is a LOT of waste heat, I might add).
>
>2. You're not going to build a nuke/coal plant in my backyard!
>
>
>Also, can you imagine if a nuke plant was CHP?
>
>Greenpeace: "You mean that steam passed through a steam genenerator that
>was in a RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT! Shut it down! Shut it down!"
>
>Get real. You can't have it both ways.
>
>Tino
>-- 
This is a speculative statement. Please ignore it, said the Judge
to the jury.


-- 
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: 22 Jan 1993 13:53:51 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au


G'day John, how's things?
 
You were "talking" to Richard Stead (stead@skadi.CSS.GOV) re taxes on
petrol et al..
 
While coming in late on this debate, let me narrate the experience of
Australia and rising petrol prices. (It is short).
 
Back in the '70s (just after the world fuel shortage which didn't
affect us as much; we were largely self-sufficient), the Government
introduced a tax on petrol. It is for our benefit, they said. You will
see clear air over the cities, they said. You will see better
maintained roads, freeways, by-passes, intra-city motorways, they
said. At the same time, we will aid in the world-wide goal of
conserving the finite oil reserves, they said. Does this all strike
you as similar rhetoric???
 
So what happened. Well we already had clear air, the new petrol tax
(at least 50c in each dollar of petrol) did nothing to stop this, new
pollution laws did. Did it stop people driving cars? NO. Did it reduce
the amount of petrol consumed? NO, it continued to increase as the
consumer base increased. Did we get better highways etc? NO, most of
the money went into "consolidated revenue"! So, you may be asking,
what did it do?
 
Well it helped INFLATION! Everything went up as it soon cost more for
your taxi, your bus, your company car, your personal car, your truck,
etc etc..
 
In summary, John, keep getting stuck into the people that advocate
this as a means for "resource conservation". It is just another excuse
for them to grab you by the balls and squeeze harder. If little else
helps, at least use the "Australian example" as one good reason not to
introduce such ridiculous taxes.
 
Is Clinton going to introduce such a tax? Is there a guarantee that it
will not go into general/consolidated revenue rather than ALL be spent
for the benefit of the road user.
 
[You know we even had a tax put on our petrol (removed only this year
- but they hit us in other ways!) because the government had to bail
out a building society (like your S&Ls I presume) and needed to get
the money from somewhere!]
 
Regard,
Mark
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:17:17 GMT

> Only the cost of construction of a small number of roads is included in gas
> taxes.  Most road construction, road maintainance, etc. is not included,
> and nothing is done about the environmental damage cars and trucks cause.
> I want all those things to be included in the price of gas.

I also want the cost of Desert Storm to be included in the cost of
gas.  If we didn't have to worry about having our oil supply cut off
we could reduce the size of the military.
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
    Good plan, bad execution...  Didn't Marie Antoinette say that?
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 20:16:56 GMT

In article <Jym.25Jan1993.0304@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>> I have no problems with the scientists who do the work and
>> report it in peer-reviewed journals.  I do have something
>> against the radical fringe of the environmental movement (like
>> Greenpeace) that is quick to take a few snippets of scientific
>> results that might support their political stands, then turn
>> around and crucify the very scientists who report the data . . .
>
>=o= Can you cite any incidences of this actually happening?

Yes. The 1992 American/European Nuclear Society Conference in Chicago.
While thousands of the world's greatest scientists were inside, discussing
years of research, the Greenpeacers were outside the convention center.
Not inside. What were they doing?

They were dressed up as fuel rods, containments, and checkvalves, screaming
"Look what you've done! No nukes! You're killing us!"

Now THAT's going to get them a lot of respect in scientific circles.

>=o= Greenpeace (the organization) does a good deal of research
>and does indeed subject it to peer review.  

"What looks better on this sign? Die Right Wing Scum, or Nukes Kill Babies?"
"I don't know. Try 50 Years of Death."

>=o= One wonders what the real source of these horrible accusa-
>tions are.  Imperfect as the Greenpeace press releases are, they
>don't make statements like that.

Uh, Jym, the banner hung from the Sears Tower said something like "50 Years
of Death."

What a press release. Mature and to the point.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7121 talk.environment:5637