HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:58:37 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

> I think the original poster was mistaken in writing "zero environmental
> impact".  He should have said "negligible or small environmental impact".

I think you're right.  Nuclear energy has negligible environmental impact over
long time periods and large areas, possibly even a positive one (assuming it is
done properly).  If its effects are compared to the alternatives (coal, oil),
then it can be considered even more positive.  However, to state that nuclear
energy has zero environmental impact, without stating the assumptions and
scope, the statement is open to misinterpretation (ie.  "The poster is an
idiot.").

A person viewing an open-pit uranium mine will not believe that it can be
considered "zero environmental impact".

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling f
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:56:16 GMT

In article <13708@mindlink.bc.ca>, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>
>> Stating that it is a political problem rather than a technical problem puts
>> the focus on where it belongs.
>
>True, but it neither solves the problem, nor ensures that it will be solved.
>Until the political problems regarding nuclear waste are solved, nuclear waste
>is a concern (potential problem) and the technological solutions are
>meaningless unless they work _despite_ the politicians and corrupt contractors.

Not to mention the technophobe greenies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: x01233@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: High-tech highways, chicken/egg (was: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:29:40 GMT
Organization: Phillip Institute of Tech, Melbourne

Just a quick question...

In article <BrpE65.5zG@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>, wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
> In article <9207172112.AA29843@TIS.COM> richard@TIS.COM writes:
> [I wrote]:

> When it is done, the roads will move faster and safer than
> ever before.  A lane of 20-foot cars going 60 MPH with 1 second
> following time (88 feet) moves 2933 vehicles/hr; the same lane
> with cars separated by 4 feet moves 13,200 vehicles/hr!  Plus,
> aerodynamic drag and fuel consumption will be cut considerably.
> At 90 MPH, the same lane could move 19,800 vehicles/hr.
> -- 
> Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
>   *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *
> 
>                            _Bad_ cop.  No donut.

How would a car leave the system? This requires driver taking over 
responsibility. The _system_ must increase the distance between the
cars so as to retain the benefits of close spacing. Turn offs increase the
risk of bashing into something if something goes wrong with the system.
At the end of a controlled highway you would need to fan out to the non
controlled road system and again this would reduce the safety (of being
surrounded by barriers).

Dale Stanbrough
RMIT
Melbourne Australia.
dale@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:48:20 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

> I think the original poster was mistaken in writing "zero environmental
> impact".  

True. He should have written: positive environmental impact.


Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kjb@cs.brown.edu (Ken Basye)
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:20:40 GMT


blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
>In article <11008@cis.rand.org> rodger@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison) writes:
>>In article <R4Q-##A@engin.umich.edu>, blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Cl
>ark ) writes:
>>
>>> The only system I can think of that currently makes all driving decisions
>>> for you is mass transit.
>>> 
>>> Ken
>>
>>Well, as a previous poster pointed out, most of the nations commercial
>>airlines fly automated systems.  I haven't heard of any fatalities related
>>to this.  ...
> 
>Alright, someone correct me with concrete examples.  I was told earlier
>this year (by Aviation Week and Space Technology) that Airbus's new
>jet liner was the first to be fully automated.  I think you folks are
>getting carried away with this idea that the nation's air traffic is
>automated.  Parts of the newest planes are fly-by-wire, but that does
>*not* mean that "most of the nations commercial airlines fly automated
>systems".
> 
>Ken

As I recall, this thread began with McCarthy's claim that automated
systems would provide significant increases in traffic flow by
allowing increases in traffic density, specifically by decreasing
following distance and lane widths.  It would seem that automated
flight systems are not a convincing existence proof for
flow-increasing automated transit systems unless their use has allowed
increased flow.  I don't know whether this has happened or not; can
someone enlighten us on this point?  If anyone is, or knows, a
commercial pilot, I'd be interested in hearing how they'd feel about
decreasing following distances on landing or takeoff by large factors,
or about putting a third runway between two existing parallel runways
and restricting landings on those runways to automated systems.  

Ken Basye

Internet/CSnet  kjb@cs.brown.edu     U.S. MAIL  Ken Basye
UUCP            uunet!brunix!kjb                Box 1910
                                                Dept. of Computer Science
                                                Brown University
                                                Providence, RI  02912

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: low tech water pumping
Keywords: pumping, low tech
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:06:01 GMT

In <3485@sol.deakin.OZ.AU> kencam@deakin.OZ.AU writes:

>I am interested in the practicalities of these systems as I see water pumping
>as the biggest single problem in irrigated farming systems.

	While I agree that water pumping is a problem in irrigated farming
systems, one other problem I've noticed is water quantity available.  Many
wells aren't deep enough, or aren't in an aquifer, and hence there's not
a whole lot of gallons/minute that can be pumped.  The solution here is a
small pump filling a large tank, usually constructed underground, and then
a main pump that is turned on twice a day or so to pump into the irrigation
system at high pressure and flow.  In addition, two floats in the water tank
can automatically operate the system.  The top float turns on the main pump
when the tank is full, and the bottom shuts the main pump off when the tank
is nearly empty.  The small tank-filling pump is running all the time.

	Perhaps these pumps you refer to can be used in these applications
as well?  In cases where a small river is available for a water source,
the pumps used tend to be fairly large affairs.  Only a few years ago the
Teledyne Continental motor was still marketed as an irrigation pump motor.
The same motor also resides in my mostly-restored 1952 Kaiser.  Inline 6,
flathead (side-valve), 225ci, 95hp.  That's a lot of power for the pump.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:03:02 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <j#lmyql@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>[me]
>>>No it's not.  Low Level NOS waste is harmless by definition.  Try reading
>
>>Harmless by government edict. But, not necessarily harmless in the real
>>world.
>
>This yackadamn fellow reminds you of that little kid on the trike who
>keeps ramming his head into the wall and can't figure out why it 
>hurts each time.
>

I'm deeply touched by your concern.

>>The required level of safety of any engineering project is a political
>>problem, not a technical one. There is no technical reason for requiring
>>air-bags or even brakes on automobiles and there is no technical reason
>>why we should not be happy with a rad-waste stream distributing "low-level"
>>rad-waste into county dumps. 
>
>Old yackadamn there, he occasionally stumbles into a good one.
>I like the air bag analogy.
>
>Air bags are useless except in certain carefully defined situations.  
>and are harmful in many others.  Despite the growing body of evidence that 
>they either don't work or are actively harmful, and NTSHA is suppressing that 
>fact, those little bits of explosive continue to get embedded in America's 
>steering wheels.  At least in the case of air bags, I have a choice.  

So, if NTSHA "suppresses" information, why is it that DOE/NRC safety
guidelines are to be trusted?  Must be a very complicated conspiracy
indeed.

>I can simply refuse to buy a new car.  The yackadamns of the world have 
>deprived me of the choice of making engineeringly sound decisions regarding 
>nuclear byproducts.  

Forced to buy a car with air-bags and deprived of your god given rights
to slather yourself with nuclear byproducts, it's no wonder that you feel the
need to engage in these little tantrums now and then.

>
>Tell us, Vic.  If, say, medical rad-waste is diluted to the point where
>its activity is below that of ambient background, and it is placed in
>a landfill, is there positive, negative or zero radiological environmental 
>impact?

Well, that depends on what happens to the waste after it gets dumped
and on how certain we are that the waste is always properly diluted, doesn't
it? Believe it or not, that which is diluted is sometimes concentrated
later on by biological or physical processes. 

>Please be specific and present your supporting evidence.  Please don't
>copy verbatim from a book.  That didn't work in elementary school
>and it does not work here.

I see you are still annoyed by my references to articles in nuclear
engineering journals which specifically contradicted the "facts" you
had presented in this forum.

BTW, I see that now Pat Buchanan is no longer campaigning, you've decided to
use "eco-nazi"  as a pejorative again. Pat would no doubt be upset to
learn of the faithlessness of his followers.
 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling f
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:32:11 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)

>+> In the research I have done on the toxicity of nuclear waste, it seems that
>+> the waste is less toxic than the ore it comes from in between 300 and 1200
>+> years, depending on how you measure toxicity (its a lot more complicated
>+> than you would think).
>+ 
>+ That's true, but timescales are important in determining what is
>+ "environmental
>+ damage".
> 
> The reference was to the toxicity hazard of nuclear waste.

Yes, but the hazard is still dependent on timescales.  Something that is a
hazard for 300 years is considered environmental damage for several generations
of people.  A clearcut forest can recover in 300 years (depends on several
factors), but a clearcut is still considered environmental damage.  If nuclear
waste became safe in five years, it wouldn't be considered a serious
environmental problem as long as it was contained during that time.

>+ Uranium mine tailings will eventually become soil, with a lower radioactive
>+ content than if it hadn't been processed, but you'll have a lot of
>+ generations of humans for whom the tailings will be an environmental
>+ problem.
> 
> Hm, changing the subject again eh?  Whats the problem?  Can't win the
> arguement so you change the focus again?

No, it's the same subject: the importance of time as a factor in determining
how serious an environmental hazard is.  I don't have an exact figure for how
many years a "generation" is, but I think it's somewhere between ten and fifty.
Whatever it is, 300 years would mean a lot of people who might be affected by
the radioactive waste, whether it's by being unable to use a particular area,
dealing with a site that might start leaking (climatic changes affecting
groundwater levels) or eco-terrorists releasing the waste to prove that it's
dangerous (people do the craziest things).

> By the way, tailings are just as radioactive as they were in the ground,
> mankind added no radiation.

Tailings tend to release materials (radon, uranium, etc) at a faster rate as
tailings than as solid rock.  The radioactivity is the same, but the rate of
release into the environment is higher.  The tailings are also an environmental
problem from non-radioactive factors too (acid leachate).

I'm a supporter of nuclear technolgoy.  I just don't like to see valid concerns
brushed aside with invalid arguments.  I know that the waste will become
relatively safe in several hundred years.  However, it's going to be dangerous
for _my_ entire lifetime, so I do consider it an environmental hazard unless
it's handled properly.

As John so carefully pointed out, handling the waste properly is a political
problem.  There are techniques I trust for handling waste safely; it's the
politicians (and the companies who win the contracts) that I don't trust to do
things properly.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:04:30 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <agmmq=c@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>Please be specific and present your supporting evidence.  Please don't
>>>copy verbatim from a book.  That didn't work in elementary school
>>>and it does not work here.
>
>>I see you are still annoyed by my references to articles in nuclear
>>engineering journals which specifically contradicted the "facts" you
>>had presented in this forum.
>
>Oh, you mean like USC publications?  Teehee.  I'm beside myself with
>mirth.
>

No, I mean like Nuclear Engineering and Design, and Nuclear Safety.
Of course, it should be obvious to any unbiased observer that the USC
publications are less reliable than your deeply informed postings.
Who could compare Kendall to De Armond? Clearly
the Nobel Prize Committee was part of the conspiracy. 

>I like to think it was the other way around, that Pat learned from people
>like me.  I can understand how you'd make that mistake.  Since you follow
>along puppet-like on the coattails of the USC and company and rely
>only on information you read, it is natural to expect you to act like
>a peon forever looking for the leader.  Some of us don't need someone else
>to think for us.  Amazing, no?

Inspiring.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Pioneer Project: Solar Hydrogn Power
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:37:53 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

[Re: hydrogen economy]

The hydrogen economy was a hot subject in the 1970s. The nonpolluting
aspect of using hydrogen as an energy storage and transfer medium were
recognized early on. Efficiency can be quite good at the conversion
points, and transport via pipeline is low cost and low loss. There are
a few thorny problems however.

Hydrogen generation by electrolyzers can be very efficient, but the
systems are costly. Hydrogen generation by nuclear thermal processes
are even more efficient and cheaper. The excess process heat can also
be used by industry in a cogeneration scheme.

Delivery of hydrogen by pipeline requires pumps of sixty times the
capacity of ordinary natural gas pipeline pumping systems. In addition,
the piping is exposed to hydrogen embrittlement. These problems have
solutions, but again they aren't cheap.

Fuel cells have been available for some time. The units produced by
Allis Chalmers had the best dollar/watt ratio in the 1960s. They
required platinum catalysts and pure hydrogen and oxygen inputs.
Newer cells can use air, but at elevated temperature. In 1973 a
50 kw unit was estimated to cost $60,000 to produce, double that
to market. The catalyst is easily poisoned and skilled maintenance
was required. There hasn't been much reported about newer cell
designs as to cost per watt. Naturally, this was DC power and
conversion equipment would have to be added to deliver AC power
to home appliances.

Automotive use of hydrogen fuel is tricky in two respects. Hydrogen
storage is a difficult problem. Stored as a compressed gas, the
tankage is bulky and heavy with little capacity. Stored cryogenically,
the required insulation and special handling are difficult and potentially
dangerous. Stored as a hydride, the tankage is still large and preheating
of the hydride is required to liberate the hydrogen. The other problem with 
hydrogen as an automotive fuel is that hydrogen has a very low octane rating. 
Keeping it from "knocking" is difficult. Various schemes utilizing exhaust
gas recirculation and special chamber designs have allowed it to work in
auto engines.

The biggest pluses to using hydrogen as an energy transport medium are
low pollution and safety. The product of hydrogen combustion is water.
In a fuel cell that's all you get. In a piston engine, combusted with
air, some nitrogen oxides are also generated and must be controlled.
Safety is a big plus for hydrogen. Because it is a lighter than air
gas, it rises quickly from an accident site taking any fire with it.
This is in contrast to gasoline or natural gas where the fuel, and
fire, remain at the accident site.

Gary
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 20 Jul 92 23:16:29 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Jul20.202445.22488@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) writes:

>A nuclear plant produces on the order of 2 cubic meters of high intensity waste  
>per year.  That waste is less radioactive than the ore it came from after 600  
>years.  That by itself doens't make it safe, as it's somewhat more soluble.   

	Yes,  but that's just the high level waste.  Properly processed,
it can be reduced to a nice little volume of heavily radioactive stuff that
we can afford to spend a good deal per unit volume or mass to get rid of,
simply because there isn't very much of it.  Yet,  we also produce medium-
and low- level wastes from different steps in the processing and handling of
nuclear materials,  as well as from the decomissioning of reactors.  Because
there is much more low-level waste,  it is actually a more serious disposal
problem than the high-level waste.

-- 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kjb@cs.brown.edu (Ken Basye)
Subject:  Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:59:12 GMT


Gary Coffman writes:

>Yes, airlines are mass transit, and extremely heavily subsidized mass
>transit at that. A system that is currently losing gobs of money *despite*
>that monster subsidy. However, just because a bus uses wheels doesn't mean
>a car can't use them too. And just because a subsidized airplane uses
>an autopilot doesn't mean a car can't use a similiar system. The aircraft
>automatic controls form an existance proof for the technology, they don't
>mean that if cars adapt automatic control they have to also adapt wings
>and jet engines.

The question remains whether automatic controls for aircraft
constitute an existence proof of a system which allows significantly
increased flow of traffic, which was the original claim for automatic
control of cars.  Are such systems being used to increase flow by
allowing closer landings and/or takeoffs, or is their use directed
only at increased safety?  

Internet/CSnet  kjb@cs.brown.edu     U.S. MAIL  Ken Basye
UUCP            uunet!brunix!kjb                Box 1910
                                                Dept. of Computer Science
                                                Brown University
                                                Providence, RI  02912
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Natural Gas Powered Vehicles
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Date: 18 Jul 92 15:12:44 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <22247@oasys.dt.navy.mil> mardiros@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Martin Mardiros) writes:
>I am doing background research into natural gas powered vehicles for
>an upcomming start of a project.  I would appreciete any information
>that is available on existing vehicle designs.  Also, I would like to
>get the names of companies actively pursuing this alternative fuel.
>Thanks for your help in advance.
>

General Pneumatics Co., Scottsdale AZ., is developing a natural gas
liquefier for home use under a phase 2 SBIR contract. The prototype is
almost complete, and hopefully production will start soon.
The device will make 18 gallons/day of LNG for automotive use, and is based
on a Stirling Engine driving a Stirling refrigerator.  The LNG is deposited
directly into the car's tank during the night.

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates!_________|