HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:53:06 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <50892@dime.cs.umass.edu:, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
: In article <JMC.92Jul25121617@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
: >Kenneth remarks about Greenpeace:
: >     I'm suprised they have not tried banning microwave ovens
: >     because they use *RADIATION* to cook the food.
: > [edit Ralpha Nader trying to ban microwave ovens]
: I'm pleased to see that you are not only willing to make wild accusations
: without any evidence, but you are willing to repeat them even after being
: corrected. If you recall, last time you raised this issue, I posted an
: excerpt from a medical journal on "microwave burns", apparently a common
: problem in young children who get scalded by food or milk heated in a
: microwave oven.

Hm, I must have missed this article, some news site must have eaten it
upstream of me.  But if the original intent was to ban microwave ovens
because some people do not use it properly, I cannot agree with it.  If
I heat food or something using mechanism X, and I do not check it before
giving it to a child, am I to blame or is mechanism X to blame?  It does
not matter whether mechanism X is a microwave oven, a conventional oven,
a stove, or a campfire.  I admit this is a radical thought in this "sue
everyone and everything who has ever had anything to do with this accident
because I cannot possibly be to blame" environment, but I believe in putting
the blame on the direct cause, not some nebulous "evil society/business".

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
AT&T and Apple: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:45:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.163028.6426@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.150423.8028@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>     As far as their planning,  no new capacity for 10 years sounds 
>     like the same recipe for disaster that have seen in the northeast
>     (Unless the new TI solar cell can somehow be rushed into economical
>     production over the next few years and it is 'shared' with PG&E).
>     Sounds more like a PR game.

They plan on a lot of new capacity by what they call "negawatts", freeing
up current capacity through efficiency.
>
>>
>>Market conditions are not good for independent producers of renewables
>>like LUZ, as described in the January issue of Solar Today.  Nevertheless,
>>the technology has survived even if the company didn't.  Luz served as
>>an inovator in an industry that is lacking in innovation.
>
>     However, it is market conditions that should predominate in power
>     generation, not wishful thinking.

Most PUC pricing methods are not tied closely to market conditions,
which is why many utilities are not using renewables or efficiency
strategies as much as they could.  All of my suggestions are based
on EPRI studies (are they ecoterrorists?) and similar research.  Is
this what you call wishful thinking?  Or is wishful thinking any idea
that disagrees with your dogma?
>
>                                dale bass
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor:  Blazing Ta
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:54:00 GMT

In article <62876@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>In fact, the destructive effects of a general-purpose demolition munition
>depend heavily on the partial vacuum following an explosion.

Please tell me, what does that have to do with the explosion "sucking all the
oxygen out of the surrounding atomsphere?"

>As the air rushes back in, the walls of buildings are pulled down.
>I suppose it should not be unexpected that the useful work is done
>on the return stroke.  Automobile ignition coils work that way,
>the spark being formed during the _collapse_ of the magnetic field
>because it yields a bigger spark than the outward-going swing of
>the field.

The way an automobile ignition coils works is that, over a period of time, a
current is set up in a coil.  When the circuit is opened, and the capicitor
(aka the condensor) is switched into the circuit, the voltage across the
capicitor builds up in accordance with the differential equation:
	dV
	-- = I(t)/C
	dt

where, at the beginning of the charging of the capacitor, the current, I is the
current that was flowing in the coil at the time the circuit was switched.  The
coil follows the differential equation:

	dI
	-- = LV(t)
	dt

When the voltage exceeds that necessary to create a spark across the spark gap
in the plug, the capacitor discharges, providing the energy necessary to ignite
the fuel (actually, the coil and the capacitor provide a resonant circuit in
which the spark gap provides a resistive component, so the current through the
gap oscillates).  What we've got is a circuit that transforms the 12 volts from
the battery to a high enough voltage to initiate the spark.  The bullshit you
cite about the 
battery into "_collapse_ of the magnetic field ... yield[ing] a bigger spark
than the outward-going swing of the field" show a total lack of understanding
of electromagnetism on your part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10330 sci.energy:3816
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: What is Market Efficiency.  was Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:38:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Jul29.222815.4828@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.234655.2768@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     Yes, that could be a canonical example.  However, we were discussing
>>     cigarettes (like it matters).
>
>	Well,  let's talk about cigarettes (instead of energy :-).  One of the
>postulates of the market economy is that all of the participants are rational,
>and act with their own economic self-interest in mind.  Yet,  cigarettes

   [stuff deleted because I am approaching my net quota for the year]

    I tend to agree with some of the things you've said, but some 
    of these 'costs' are impossible to gauge without arbitrarily setting 
    them (taxes etc.).  In the absence of a compelling reason otherwise,
    we'd do just as well to allow things to go as they are (with the
    possible exception of dropping the price controls) ObEnergy: dropping
    price controls probably would not be a good thing to apply
    to energy production by monopolistic producers.  

    Anyway back to our smoking. After all, we already set a large portion 
    of the costs through taxes that tend to decrease the prevalence 
    of smoking by making the product more expensive.  

    However, there is a fairly good argument that no participant in any market
    is truly rational and nor is the cigarette market exactly free since
    it *is* addictive, there are government price supports and growth
    limitations on the raw materials, and the end-product is taxed
    up the wazoo.

>	The really sick thing about many of these things is that they
>can be explained by the actions of "rational" actors who act
>inflexibly towards self-destructive ends in a market system.

     No one said economics was a shield against self-destruction.

                               dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: [Les Disposables] disposable eating-ware (cutlery)
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:29:52 GMT
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...

In article <9207310107.AA06133@efi.com> dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung) writes:
>
>     In parties, it is almost impossible not to use disposable (misnomer; should
>be "disposing", because they "will be disposed", rather than "can be
>disposed") cutlery and paper plates and napkins (never use plastic plates,
>because they cannot be disposed).  However, this high-consumption
>products can perhaps be and should be eliminated from everyday use in companies.

Probably depends on what the alternatives are.  Nondisposable silverware and
the like have to be cleaned after each use, else they become a health hazard.
Which means more expense.

To be honest, I have no idea whether or not the use of eating utensils like
that is a significant enough cost that companies actually bother to look at
it in detail.  However, I will say this: silverware is *expensive*.

>Some companies allow employees to use for example polystyrene (foam
>rubber) cups or paper cups.  Although they can be kept from day to day,
>it is too convenient so that many people disposed of them after drinking,
>and also dispose of stirrers after stirring once.

Definitely wasteful.  I tend to re-use such things myself when I can, but
that's more a personal matter than anything else.

>     || What a waste! ||

I certainly agree with the sentiment expressed here.  The U.S. is very
definitely a "disposable society", and I think it's a real shame.  It
used to be that people would build things to last, and try to keep
things as long as possible.  That doesn't seem to be the case anymore...

Perhaps part of this is the result of the loss of focus on quality?

>						Daniel Chung (Mr.), U.S.A.


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil.
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul30122015@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul31.002207.3029@michael.apple.com>
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:16:19

In article <1992Jul31.002207.3029@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Jul30122015@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >I wonder if the State of California program to use methanol fueled
   >vehicles isn't just more lawyers' technology (perhaps politicians'
   >technology is better in this case), a politically popular idea
   >that won't cost too much if done on a small enough scale.

   In a way I suppose it is.  It is being driven by the Smog Laws ...

   L.A. is so far out of spec, and Ca. laws are scheduling such tight
   requirments over such a short time span, that radical things MUST be done.

   Take the Zero Emmisions Vehicles requirments for example.  Specific
   numbers of ZEV's that each car manufacturer must sell to do any business
   in the state ...

   Lawyers Delight.  Politicians Dream.  I'd rail against it, if it 
   wasn't promoting the cleaner air that I'd rather breath and the 
   alternative fuel vehicles that I'd like to play with ...

   So methanol is coming in as a way to cut smog, no matter the cost
   today, in preparation for a cleaner tomorrow  ... The State is 
   spending the money to set up the basic government market in the 
   expectation that this will build enough infrastructure for the
   average fleet owner and/or private citizen to feel comfortable
   buying a flex fuel vehicle.

   -- 

   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.

I don't know about L.A., but around Palo Alto, it seems that the
air is good enough.  Maybe the Air Resources Board is running
away with itself.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:15:21 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <20200@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <50719@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>|> Similarly, used tires have potential value, as does auto exhaust. But,
>|> 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.
>
>
>In what way have the French shown this?  They have operating reprocessing
>plants, and have produced and used (and sell) mixed oxide fuel containing
>plutonium.  Are you refering to their fast breeders?  Note that it is
>not necessary to use fast reactors, or for that matter to involve plutonium,
>to achieve a breeding ratio > 1.

The french have the largest investment in breeders, and this has
not been a happy experience for them. As for the French reprocessing
plants, they are, of course, under tight secrecy both in terms of
safety problems and financial problems, so one cannot determine whether
or not they are either safe or financially viable. The English reprocessing
experience is a well known environmental disaster and it is not clear
what the French are doing with the waste stream from their reprocessing
plants.

I understand that there are types of reactors which operate a complete
fuel cycle without the use of fast breeder reactors, but as far as
I know all such systems are either proposed or experimental. You
suggest that the CANDU reactors may have a breeding ratio > 1, can
anyone confirm this? How much unusable waste is generated during
reprocessing for CANDU style reactors?




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:09:22 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <aZS-FC=@engin.umich.edu> blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.082656.6584@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>That gives a new total of $138.05
>>billion a year in government revenue from road vehicles. That more than
>>covers a $71.2 billion expenditure for highways which is why they raid 
>>the funds for mass transit subsidies. We haven't even mentioned tolls
>>or special wheel taxes imposed on interstate trucks and local commuters.
>
>
>Nor have you even mentioned the non-highway roads that make up most of
>the road mileage in this country.

Let's see, the Feds pay 100% for Interstates, 90% for US Highways, and
50% for State and local roads. The balance comes from State and local
taxes.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10224 sci.physics:11899
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Reliability of BART (was: Cost of public vs. private transportation)
Followup-To: talk.environment
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:48:07
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Jul23.214040.18975@s1.gov> <JMC.92Jul23164910@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 23 Jul 92 23:49:10 GMT

[Note that since this has nothing to do with physics or science,
I've set followups to talk.environment.]

> He said that he often takes BART, but he wanted me to be sure
> to be on time, so I had better drive.

=o= I can't imagine what could have been going on in his mind.
BART does a very good job of keeping on schedule.  In contrast,
a typical Bay Area rush "hour" goes on for half the afternoon
and half the evening, *especially* if you go through S.F.  And 
it's especially bad at the several places each day where there's
an accident.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul22151713@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1992Jul23.001108.4275@s1.gov>
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:54:12

In article <1992Jul23.001108.4275@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Jul22151713@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   :My own opinion is that we should build more freeways as necessary, that
   :measures to force people to work odd hours are oppressive.  They are
   :particularly harmful for families with children.  Also they restrict
   :people's social choices.  There are good reasons for suffering the
   :inefficiency of allowing almost everyone to work 9-5, Monday through
   :Friday.

	   What if some people _like_ working odd hours?

	   Or have suitable arrangements to take care of the children?

	   This sounds like a dubious form of social engineering.

   /Loren

I have no objection to allowing people to work odd hours if they want to.
I have done it whenever I have not had family responsibilities.  However,
I believe that at present the number of people who work odd hours is
larger than the number who want to - even with night shift premiums.

Some of the proposals I have seen on these newsgroups are not at all
voluntary.  In order to even out traffic they would compel people to
work odd hours.  Let me point out that any manufacturing business that
wants its employees to have shorter commutes can work odd hours if it
wants to.  I believe that the reason they don't is that the employees
prefer the longer commutes to working odd hours.

Utopians are almost always coercive.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9839 sci.physics:11461
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:03:39 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.032157.1519@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	Consider the source of the money for building the Interstate
>freeway system -- public money. In fact, they would not have been
>built unless Eisenhower decided that they would be paid for out of the
>Federal pocket.

Consider the sales taxes collected from each car sale, the share of a cars
price that pays GM's income tax, the excise tax, the sales tax on labor that
maintains the car and on replacement parts.  Consider registration fees and
parking fees.  Public money?  You bet.  And all of it entirely unrelated to
the gas taxes that were originally meant to pay for the highways and which are
now frequently raided for many non-highways projects, including direct sub-
sidies of mass transit.  And virtually none of this is EVER factored in by the
anti-car lobby on this group.

As was pointed out in exhaustive detail in a thread some weeks ago, what little
costs the most exact accounting can lay at the door of the highway system are
more than overwhelmed by cost incurred by trucks, whose great weights, in-
creasing all the time, drive up maintenance costs, and increase refurbishing
costs with awesome engineering demands on bridges and the like.

I am 100% in favor of charging cars exactly what they owe.  I'm quite convinced
they'll get cheaper in such a system, but the social engineers will have to
find a new cash cow.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9882 sci.energy:3596 sci.physics:11513
From: zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Zika)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:02:48 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul22.115931.11682@aoa.aoa.utc.com> carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft) writes:
>There's a nuke plant in MA which is old and creaky; the estimated cost
>to shutdown, dismantle, etc. is something like 20X the fab cost. This
>seemed crazy to me-- it would be cheaper to keep it offline and
>permanently manned, guarded, etc.  So it goes.

I believe that you're referring to Yankee Atomic.  The newly released
decommissioning, rad-waste disposal and site restoration cost is $247 million.

According to Nuclear News:

"When the decommissioning cost estimate was announced, news reports pointed
out that it had only cost $39 million to build Yankee.  Although on the
face of it this seems to mean that tearing Yankee down will cost at least
six times as much as building it did, there are at least two other ways
of getting perspective on this.  First, the $39 million was spent more
than 30 years ago, and give inflation, might correspond to about $300 million
now -- more than the $247 million decommissioning estimate.  Second, Yankee
produced about 33 million MWh of electricity in its lifetime.  The value of
the electricity varied over the years as inflation took effct, but even
without considering inflation, the decommissioning could be see to cost
less than $7.50 per MWh"

That's:  $0.0075 per kwh, or 0.7 cents per kwh


>Bobby Newmark, aka  Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates


-- 
                                     |
Michael Zika (zika@ecn.purdue.edu)   |    Hey don't ask me "why?",
Purdue University                    |    I'm still working on "how?" ! 
School of Nuclear Engineering        |
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10305 sci.physics:12049
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:29:35 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul28.155151.3676@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>Do the figures of cost of highways include the cost of highway patrol, and of
>a fair share of the judicial system?

At least in Georgia, highway patrol and traffic court systems are net
revenue producers. In many smaller jurisdictions, speeding fines are
the sole source of revenue for local government. Georgia, home of the 
original speed trap run by local parasites.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9716 sci.geo.meteorology:2517 sci.skeptic:13036