HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul25.044333.9776@sugra.uucp> <50876@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 92 11:59:38

In article <50876@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   In article <1992Jul25.044333.9776@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
   >In article <50719@dime.cs.umass.edu:, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
   >: for nuclear wastes to have real value a working nuclear fuel cycle must
   >: be developed. As the French have shown, this is not a solved problem.
   >: Assuming that such a cycle exists, while the waste inventory continues
   >: to build, is simply wishful thinking.
   >
   >Such a cycle can not be done without nuclear recycling, which can not be
   >done until the government reverses the decision by President Carter to
   >freeze the nuclear recycling program.  In this case, it is not a technical
   >barrier, it is a political one.

   President Carter's authority over France was somewhat limited, and the
   French went ahead with a fast-breeder program. This program has
   met with many very expensive techical problems. Real world 
   engineering is often more difficult than corporate planners wish it
   to be.

   yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Let me amplify Victor Yodaiken's point.  Carter's authority over all
foreign countries was limited.  His theory that the U.S. dropping
reprocessing would somehow promote non-proliferation and would be
copied by other countries was completely wrong.  Not one other
country gave up reprocessing.  France is building up its reprocessing
capacity to 800 tons of fuel rods per year.

Carter's decision split the difference between the anti-nukes and
the pro-nukes, generating an incoherent policy of retaining nuclear
power but doing it in a half-assed way.  It was his habit.  He gave
half of foreign policy to Cyrus Vance, a conservative Democrat, at
the State Department and the other half to Andrew Young, an anti-U.S.
leftist at the U.N.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:30:57 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul22.154529.2614@midway.uchicago.edu> rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
|
|ENSO is a red-herring in this context.  Not only is the resulting
|warming not global, but since the cycle lasts 3-5 years, the
|net effects of ENSO average out over the decadal time scale. In
|contrast, with 2xCO2 warming, we are talking about a warmer climate
|year-in, year-out.  The fluctuations like ENSO would be superposed
|(probably not linearly) on top of this generally warmer climate.

It is true that ENSO is not relevant as a causaive factor in global
warming, but it may be relevant in estimating the *effects* of such.

ENSO may *not* be superimposed on a warming trend, rather the warming
trend might 'latch' the ENSO in the El Nino mode more or less permanently.
(That is if the actual driving force of the El Nino is a West Pacific
surface water warming).

One of the difficulties in figuring out how global warming will effect
the climate is the fact that the effects may not be *linear*.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:50:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.070039.25786@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.221116.2989@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>The numbers refer to "reductions in peak summer demand." 
>
>Once again, dingo drags in reductions in projected peak demand (and in peak
>demand in the peak season, at that).  Dean, just how does reduction in peak
>demand for one part of the year have anything to do with building new coal or
>nuclear (i.e., base-load) plants?

Does lawyers science also refer to misinterpreting facts in a way that
bolster ones attitudes?  Converting from low efficiency equipment to
high efficiency reduces total energy usage because the equipment uses
less energy.  It _also_ reduces peak demand because this equipments is
being used during that time of day (and year).  Many of the figures I
quote mention peak demand because that is what utilities are most
interested in.  A parenthetical comment to the quote that you are
responding to from the EPRI report says: "Comparable estimates of
reductions in _energy use_ and summer peak demand attributable to
utility DSM in the year 2010 are 5.7% and 9.5%, respectively."(emphasis added)

I have explained numerous times how efficiency decreases both peak demand
and total energy usage.  Do you still believe that DSM refers to
simply shifting usage to the nighttime?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9777 sci.physics:11383 sci.energy:3530
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:20:09 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Jul21.202320.6596@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>     to the concept of nuclear power.  In my way of thinking, a cask
>     of potentially useful radioisotopes buried thousands of feet
>     under western hills is exceedingly preferable to the smog-belching
>     coal-fired plants in the Ohio valley that are progressively
>     acidifying our streams and killing our trees.  
>

	I agree.  This would be correct if the only two sources of energy
that we have availible are nuclear fission and coal.  Fission advocates
usually like to compare nuclear energy with coal...  Maybe once in a while
they say something like "A solar cell doesn't produce enough energy in
it's lifetime to make up for the energy it costs to make it."  I suppose
that if I had to make a choice between nuclear fission and coal,  I'd
probably end up choosing fission.  No matter which one we choose,  we
go "ONWARD TO THE PLEISTOCENE!" whenever we deplete our reserves...  Both
are 'Fossil' fuels -- one from once living materials,  the other produced
in the cores of exploding supernovae.  (Maybe you nuclear power people should
pick up a few slogans from Earth First!)  Either that,  or we switch to
renewables,  in which case nuclear power,  coal power and the rest of
them are all just temporary holdups in the progress of technology -- Hell,
you nuclear people are anti-technology! :-)

	Environmentalists do not advocate coal as an energy source.  Therefore,
why don't you guys go out and learn a bit about renewables and then come
back and compare their potential with the potential of nuclear power.  One
thing you'll discover is that the average American house,  with average
appliances,  has enough roof area for it's electricity needs to be met with
photovoltaics plus storage in almost all of the lower 48.  Or maybe you'll
realize the fantastic supply of sustainable wind energy that blows through
Nebraska or the rest of the states of the Great Plains.  This doesn't even
tie up the land -- windmills fit right in with agriculture and grazing.

	Beyond just sustainable ways of producing energy,  there are also
great steps to be made in the area of using it efficiently;  it is believed
that America's consumption of electricity could be cut by 70% without making
any sacrifices...  Hell,  a well-designed compact flourescent produces
better quality light than an incadescent and lasts ten times as long,  which
makes it more convenient to boot.  Similarly,  a well-insulated refrigerator
keeps a more even temperature inside.

	If nuclear power advocates would just give up their luddite-like
apprehension towards sustainable technologies,  then we might actually
start developing a sane energy technology for this country and the world.

-- 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: corydin@wam.umd.edu (Tim Lachine)
Subject: Gaia
Keywords: mathematics
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:41:59 GMT

I'm currently finishing up my Masters in physics, and have been toying with the
idea of trying to do a mathematically rigorous analysis of James E. Lovelock's
Gaia Hypothesis.  After going thru the literature, I'm discouraged to find that
little research has been done in this area, and was sondering if anyone out     there has been doing anything on their own, if know of anyone doing anything.


tim
From: utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars vs. Bikes (Was: Why electric cars?) and carpooling stuff.
Date: 29 Jul 1992 20:08:14 GMT
Organization: Processed People for a Processed America
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <4613@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>In article <155v0nINNlsl@agate.berkeley.edu>, utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes:
>>o Many people seem to have the impression that they have a "right" to
>>drive a car.  Not so, in California anyway, strange to some of you as
>
>This is a artifact of the doctrine of implied powers.  In fact, no state
>has the right to arbitrarily designate any activity as privilege for the
>purposes of regulation, that is prohibited in no uncertain terms by the 9th
>Amendment.  It is a fiction which is promulgated and protected by people like
>you who believe the Constitution strictly delineates all the rights we are
>allowed to have.  In fact, the 9th specifically reserves all rights NOT so
>delineated.  It requires only recognition of the right, so far withheld by
>most states because they can get away with it so long as people do not under-
>stand the Constitution.
>

I was not aware that I did or was "promulgated and protected" this idea.  I
was just stating a factoid.  I have never heard of anyone arguing successfully
in court for reinstatement of their licence by calling on the ninth amendment.

You may argue that it is a right that has yet to be recognized.  Some people
assume it and others don't.  There are other rights that are specifically
delineated in the constitution and amendments that are not well *recognized*
(the Second Amendment comes to mind).  The States and the Fed. Gov. are
often trashing the Second Amendment.

Some people think there is a "right to privacy", in fact there is no specific
"roght to privacy".  The "right to privacy" is just an interpretation of
a set of other rights including the 4th, 5th, and 9th.  But it is, as you
say, recognized as such.  But only since about *Griswold vs. Conn.*(1965).

Since most states have a constitution similar if not identical to the
federal one... They have the power to levy taxes etc.  Your licence
is just a tax.  I believe this is what the states will claim if their
laws regarding privelege are challenged.

If you argue that the states have no power to restrict and licence certain
activities, where will you stop?

>Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.

David Utidjian
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 26 Jul 92 06:43:59 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Instead, the city should take it's evolution to the logical conclusion and
> dispense with city centers completely. The revolutions in communications,
> manufacturing, distribution, and sales no longer require a central hub. ....
> The downtown is a dinosaur that hasn't got the message that it is dead yet.

Untrue.  Some people _like_ living with lots of people around.  Some people
like having a large variety of restaurants to choose from, and that high
density of restaurants and other services depends on an appropriate number of
patrons within short travel time.  You can't eat via modem, or experience a
full orchestra at home (it's not the same with a sound system).

Check out a city with a healthy core, like Vancouver; many people really like
being in Vancouver's core.  There's a vibrancy, an excitement in the air.  You
feel good just going out on the streets and experiencing the sights, the sounds
and the smells.  There are things to see in the shop windows; a whole selection
of aromas from all the restaurant on a block; street musicians (some quite
good); people showing off their new clothes.  If you want some peace and quiet,
there's a large park nearby, with ancient trees, soothing surf, quiet paths
where you can't tell that you're anywhere near civilization...

I usually find small town depressing.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:19:40 GMT

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

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

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

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:51:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <STEINLY.92Jul27163017@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.151824.7138@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>   In article <STEINLY.92Jul26142710@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
> 
>   Dozens of old coal plants will be shut down due to age in the next
>   decade or two.  Their capacity must be dealt with before shutting
>   down other plants.  Renewable energy plants can be constructed in
>   extremely short times; retrieved capacity from efficiency is
>   available is a short time span, also.  Nuclear plants take ten years
>   to build.  The new "inherently safe" nuclear plants are still under
>   study.  As a practical matter, efficiency and renewables are the most
>   pragmatic approach.
> 
>I do not believe order GW renewable energy plants can be constructed
>on less than a decade time scale. Wind and solar still have
>engineering development to do, hydro is saturated in most regions
>and geothermal and wave power is still mostly at the research stage.

True.  Renewables aren't available on the scale of GW during the next
decade.
>
>Nuclear plants BTW do not take a decade to build, that's how long it
>takes to file the paperwork and legal appeals :-( 

As a practical matter, they take a decade to get online.
>
>I also think you underestimate the time scale for efficiency
>implementation, a lot of energy intensive household and light energy
>loads are "capital" items and are turned over on decade time scales
>(how often do you buy a new fridge?) - heavy industry turnover
>is longer, unless we conveniently blow up existing capacity ;-)
>and transport efficiency is slowly improving but requires (IMHO) a
>technology breakthrough to make much difference.

The facts I have quoted indicate otherwise.  Ongoing DSM projects 
already have the capacity to "retrieve" energy on this scale: "This
DSM will provide a reduction of 45 GW ... in 2000, and a potential
capital savings of up to $45 billion." from the EPRI report.  This quote
refers to ongoing DSM efforts, which are minimal compared to the
possibilities, as I have previously showed.  Although the capital cost
for the various efficient technologies is not cheap, it is much cheaper
than the capital cost for coal or nuclear plants, as the MTP cost
figures demonstrate.

In the end, I am sure many new large power plants will need to be built
in the next decade or two.  But this has more to do with the unwillingness
of many to accept that their intuition does not match the facts and
the inertia of the utilities.
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Just because there's a reason          			*
>*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:02:34 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <50963@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.065946.20057@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>For once you are absolutely right Victor. Government interference in
>>the power market *has* been a disaster. TVA should be sold. The NRC
>>scaled back. Military and civilian nuclear programs should be
>>totally separated. And all lawyers should be shot. Unfortunately, it's
>>not a perfect world, and we have to deal with what we've got.
>
>I'm thrilled to have  finally reached such a height of respectability.
[long rehash of government meddling in the power market deleted]

You're still agreeing with me Victor. The market is distorted by government
action. I'm perfectly willing to end government interference in the power
markets and let the producers and consumers find the optimum power production
mix on purely economic factors. Any resulting nuclear generating system
would look markedly different in an interference free market. I don't
believe, however, that it would be missing from the mix. Unfortunately,
I also don't believe that the government will do this, so it's a moot
point.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:24:30 GMT

In article <4593@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.194747.8927@cco.caltech.edu>, rkrii@cco.caltech.edu (Roberk Kim Rickenbrode II) writes:
>>There are movements now to have the sources accept some of these costs --  
>>internalizing the externalities -- by taxes of some form.  While this 
>
>"Taxes" are the answer only if the question was "how do we louse things up?"
>"Taxes" aren't used to address the problems, they are used to support the
>welfare state, the national debt or that corporate welfare system called the
>national defense industry, which between them account for something like 90%
>of the Federal budget.  The only real "solutions" that have come out of gov't
>regulation come in the form of legal requirements, such as emissions require-
>ments.

So tell us, Larry, what means other than taxation do you propose to use to
internalize the externalities?  If you can come up with something novel and
substantive instead of simply your usual rantings, you ought to be able to get
a Ph.D. in economics out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:56:57 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Jul26222519@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Like anything else that produces heat, a microwave can cause
>burns by heating up food that subsequently burns someone.
>However, the odds are better than with something that involves
>an open flame or a stove that remains hot long after the food
>is cooked.

I really object to dressing up this kind of wild speculation in the language
of science. If you simply claimed that "I don't see how electrical or
gas stoves can be anyhting but more dangerous than microwaves", then it
would be immediately clear that you were shooting from the hip. But, you
not only make a specious claim about the "odds", but you then claim that
this travesty of scientific reasoning implies that Ralph Nader "killed"
children. Let's try this reasoning on the collective membership of the
Stanford Computer Science department. It's obvious that the Stanford
Computer Science department has engaged in a long-term effort to advance
computerization, and the odds are that some control device which
depends only on relays  will suffer a control failure  less often than
a device depending on computer control, or even, God forbid, an AI program.
It follows that the Stanford AI department is guilty of murdering all the
people who have died in computer related accidents (see, Comp.Risks).
Shame on you.

>I suppose this won't satisfy Victor Yodaiken, but I am unable
>to bring to my usenet postings the standards of publication in
>scientific journals.  I try to do as well as the average journalist,
>however.

Well, it depends on the scientific journal. The average journalist,
however, would hesitate to assert that someone "killed" children without
making an effort to gather a few facts together.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic