HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lizard@cats.ucsc.edu (Raul Essig)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 17:06:50 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep3.133036.25840@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>
>Let's take a look at what the anti-nuclear movement pushes as "appropriate
>technology".  According to Amory Lovins, "appropriate" means simple,
>decentralized, easy-to-understand and control, small-scale, and suited to 
>a particular end-use.  Many who follow this doctrine do so because (and I
>know this because they've told me) they like the idea of, for example, 
>being able to climb up onto their own roof and install a sheet of 
>photovoltaics -- as opposed to getting power from some unseen and 
>mysterious power plant down the road, whose operation requires hundreds of
>people, without a single one able to run the plant all by themselves.

I do have to admit, climbing on to my own roof and installing a sheet
of photovoltaics sounds appealing to me, just because it puts the
controll of my power more into my own hands ( and those of the sun )
rather then the invisible others.


>As for sincerity -- when you hear some of the most disgusting lies and
>half-truths about the availability of waste disposal technology, the 
>toxicity of Plutonium, the abilities of plant operators, the integrity
>of pool storage, the effects of TMI, and even the facts of documented
>historical events which any child could look up, coming from the mouths
>of supposed scientists, you start to wonder about that too.

Well, you have to at least consider that many (but surely not all) of the 
"half truths" and "disgusting lies" probably once were true.  That does
not change the fact that they are wrong, but it means that not all
of these rumors are maliscious propaganda.  Many people on both sides of
the fence need to practice philosophy of "know thine enemy".  Maybe if
we did there would not be such violent opposition.

>
>>    <_Jym_>
>-- 
>Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
>Dept. Engineering Physics
>McMaster University
>Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  


-Raul Essig

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gac@orion (G. Andy Cordonier)
Subject: Re: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Organization: Shell Oil
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:41:10 GMT

In article <580008@hplred.HP.COM> curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry) writes:
>
>The probabilities that oil will "run out" (i.e. become depleted in 
>cheap formations) involve a good bit of science. A lot more is known about
>oil formations now than was known in the 1930's, and it seems unlikely
>that any major oil fields remain to be discovered.

Oil companies seem to disagree with you, Bo, as they continue to invest a
lot of money looking for new oil fields (although at much lower levels
than pre-recession).  Two or three times a year the business sections
of the Houston newspapers report the discovery of another major field.
Probably much more oil is found though with the numerous small fields that
are discovered more or less continuously.  Big finds are mostly in Gulf
waters these days, but are still profitably recoverable.


-- 
Andy Cordonier  \ Any resemblence between my opinions and those of my
(gac@shell.com) \ employer is purely coincidental (or is it fate?).
                             \  "Any sufficiently advanced bullsh*t 
                              \  is indistinguishable from fact."
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 06:50:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.204006.16290@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
|> [...]
|> I question this.  I believe the actual cost for coal is lower.
|> 
|> A recent issue of Power Engineering reported that the 9 powerplants
|> [...]

Do you remember which issue this came from? Also, did you mean Power
Engineering or Power Engineering Journal (the latter is a British journal)? 
For some reason none of the libraries around here have any Power Engineering
issues after 1987 although they do have current Power Engineering Journal
issues.

Larry Edwards
edwards@sunrise.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:14:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.163534.28920@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>If I lived on a farm and had an acute love of the outdoors and the beauty of 
>unspoiled nature, the last thing I'd want is a matrix of ugly, noisy 
>wind turbines on my land, knocking down birds, spoiling my view, and generating
>electricity for the city folks.

Let me get this straight.  You're in business to grow crops.  This means,
usually:
     o	Planting things in neat rows;
     o	Erecting structures to hold the crops once harvested;
     o  Erecting fences to protect the crops;
     o  Installing irrigation systems to water the crops.
Now I've got a question.  Having done all that in the immediate vicinity of
where you live, where is it you go to be able to look at the "beauty of
unspoiled nature"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:46:53 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

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

Is this why artificial reefs made from car bodies are so  
popular with our finned friends?

One of the byproducts of generating power in the tropics by  
taking advantage of the temperature difference tween  
surface and abyssal waters, is that you could dump the  
fairly nutrient rich abyssal water at the surface, and  
produce an enormously productive plume.  (Shut down the  
power plant and 5 hundred million anchovies starve...)
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:16:00 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <580009@hplred.HP.COM> curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry) writes:
>
> | (BC):
> |>Actually, predictions by real authorities are usually more or less right.
> |
> |(JdA):
> |Cite an example of major disaster predicted by the authorities  that
> |has come true.  

Well, the hurricane that just did Miami and is now whacking New Orleans
seems to have been predicted rather accurately... though only on a 
short time scale...

>Reasonable people predict disaster, not for the titillation it provides,
>but because they hope to stimulate action to fend off the disaster.
>The "predictions" are extrapolations of current trends, and the purpose
>of the "prediction" is to provoke action to change the trend. Sometimes
>this succeeds. If the "predicted" disaster then does not occur, should
>this count as a failure, or as a success, of the prediction.

You should be able to cite a collection of predicted disasters that
did happen rather than needing to resort to this weak argument about
causality corruption...  How about Challenger? Wasn't an expert
prediction ignored just prior to it blowing up?  How about the Loma Prieta
quake?  Wasn't it on a chunk of fault line that the USGS had flagged
as a high probability for a big quake? how about ...
>
>Even us hardened Eco-Nazis would just as soon avoid disaster, if possible,
>even if that means that our "predictions" turn out to have been exaggerated.

The problem with this argument (the whole thing, not just the last few
lines in this post...) is that it will degenerate into a parade of 
failed predictions vs. a paradeof accurate ones.  The 'bottom line' is
that MANY predictions fail, and many are right on the money.  So the 
prudent thing to do is look at the QUALITY of the predictions.

When one looks at the quality of information used in predicting Dire 
Straights from using oil, one rapidly finds poor data.  As the predictions
are better supported, there will be better response from the society
at large (look at what happened when CFCs were shown to really be
a threat to the ozone layer.  All kinds of cooperation world wide to 
find alternatives and cut production.)  RIGHT NOW, the bulk of the 
evidence indicates that there is no reason to worry about saving
any oil what so ever, and that the 'problem' couldn't even come
close to manifesting for another 20 years if it did exist; therefore,
the prudent thing to do is not screw up the whole economy ... pending
better justified disaster scenarios ...
-- 

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
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Turkey Point nuclear power plant spill
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:21:39 GMT

In what's probably the most environmentally devastating accident at a civilian
nuclear power plant in U.S. history, the nuclear plant at Turkey Point,
Florida, damaged by hurricane Andrew, spilled about 10,000 gallons of fuel oil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:06:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.011424.24851@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>Let me get this straight.  You're in business to grow crops.  This means,
>usually:
>     o	Planting things in neat rows;
>     o	Erecting structures to hold the crops once harvested;
>     o  Erecting fences to protect the crops;
>     o  Installing irrigation systems to water the crops.
>Now I've got a question.  Having done all that in the immediate vicinity of
>where you live, where is it you go to be able to look at the "beauty of
>unspoiled nature"?

OK, I get it.  Farmers are really just land developers like all the rest. 
I guess there shouldn't be any problem then.  

>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL


-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re:
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:54:00 GMT
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193


PD>Remember, you said *most* farms and ranches.  I have no doubt that
PD>remote farms and ranches may find wind useful.  I have never seen a
PD>working windmill on an eastern farm.

Perhaps *most* was a little strong. Probably no one has made a survey.
Worth looking into though.

BTW, did you see the half page ads that ran in November 91 issues of the
Wall Street Journal and the New York Times that announced:

"Introducing The Niagara Mohawk Air Force.

We've joined forces with U.S. Windpower. the world's largest
mamufacturer and operator of wind generators, the Electrical Power
Research Institute, and California's Pacific Gas and Electric
Corporation in a special cooperative effort to bring commercial size
windpower to the East Coast."

It seems that these audacious, California organizations are conspiring
with a gullible, New York State power company to build a large
wind farm of "five cent" turbines during 1992 in the eastern Lake
Ontario region. So you soon will be able to see a "windmill" on an
eastern farm and you will be able to measure the "Nimby" factor close at
hand. I sincerely hope that the Caliornia-made "windmills" can take all
that acid rain back there.

Farms in the East???

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . On a clear disk you can seek forever
         
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:00:20 GMT

In article <52907@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>Gosh, it must be a conspiracy. Quick, let's get the disinterested 
>scientists and public relations experts from GE and B&W to help rescue
>us from these dangerous forces.

Be sure you don't blind yourself with your own sarcasm.  Disenchanted 
("disinterested"?  why would you use that word?) scientists *have* left
the nuclear industry or R&D community to join the anti-nuclear crowd, and 
many do make you wonder just why they left their previous job in the first 
place.

But they don't have to come from the "nuclear" side of the fence.  As an
undergrad I once went to the offices of an "environmental research" group to
demand they reimburse me with the mandatory donation deducted from my     
registration fees.  They wanted to know why, and I told them I didn't think
they did adequate research, citing as example their frequent, unbalanced 
use of information from a prominent Toronto anti-nuclear group -- and, in
particular, the fellow who calls himself their "nuclear researcher".

"But...," they objected, "he's a PhD in Physics!"

"Exactly," I answered (I did not know if this were true or not), "then he
should know better than to say what he says."  I got my money.

This started me thinking about the consequences of a person of perceived 
credibility, such as a doctor or scientist, spreading dogma and having it   
received as gospel by a gullible public.  You see this every day on the 
news.  A prominent example is the case of the Ukranian medical doctors, with
no training in radiation sickness or the long-term effects of radiation 
exposure, citing Chernobyl as the cause of all the Leaukemiae, birth 
defects, and other anomolies they've seen since 1986.  The Ukrainian doctors
don't know any better, but a Canadian epidemiologist who continually cites
an Indian study on food irradiation that no credible scientist in the field 
accepts as valid, should know better and probably does.

>
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
>


-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:23:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Econ a science? Was Re: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

 |Michael Smith:
 |Well, economices IS a 'sci.'!  <etc>.
 |But 'soft' sciences are still sciences, and Econ is more analytical than
 |the average social science ... so I think it is fair to class Econ as a 'sci'.
 |(And an 'ls' of /usr/spool/news/sci does shown 'econ', so even the 
 |NetGods agree ...).
 |

I agree, actually.

 |One final quibble.  You stated 'the cost function is basically
 |how much we are willing to pay, in this case for oil.'   I think
 |you have confounded the terms 'cost' and 'price'.  The price function
 |is how much we are willing to pay, the cost function is what it 
 |costs the provider to produce the goods.  Normally, a business
 |expects its price to be higher than its cost and spends a great
 |deal of its time fretting over this difference, the 'profit margin'.

I was using "cost function" the way the term is usually used in decision
theory, rather than to refer to the "costs" of sci.econ.
In decision theory, the cost function is usually treated as one of the
givens, rather than something which can actually be derived. I intended
to refer only to a value weighting of various outcomes, including
externalities, aesthetic values, and prejudices as well as economic costs.

 |
 |MS: [Description of how prices and costs are derived in microeconomic
 |     theory].

Bo Curry
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4151 sci.environment:10906
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Summary: Coffman needs to check his numbers... again.  SPS would be tiny.
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:01:30 GMT
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI

In <1992Aug25.142253.942@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>The major difficulty with SPS is the sheer size of the required solar
>collector. To deliver one Terawatt to Earth's surface requires a collector
>the diameter of the Moon.

If the 1360 W/m^2 solar flux is collected with 15% efficiency and
transmitted with 60% efficiency, delivery of 1e12 W would require
a collector of area 8.2e9 m^2, or a circular collector of radius
51 km.  This is 3 orders of magnitude less than the area of the moon.

>If placed at GEO height, the collectors would
>span 30% of the celestial sphere. We won't even mention the microwave
>arrays and Earth based rectennas required for wireless transmission of
>power from space.

A sphere of 26,200 miles radius has an area of 2.2e10 square kilometers.
The required collector would cover .000037% of that area.  Coffman's
numbers are off by 4 orders of magnitude this time; quite a feat!

I really do hate it when people post without checking their numbers;
McCarthy's Law applies, in spades.
-- 
Russ Cage                  wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (until 8/28/92)
            russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu (until whenever)

  I'm leaving the net Friday 8/28 for an unknown duration.  Au revoir!
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4131 sci.environment:10866
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:30:22 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug25.142253.942@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>I'd prefer to cut out that middleman too and simply depend on 1000
>1 gigawatt nuke plants on the grid right here on Earth where construction, 
>operation, and maintenance are cheaper, easier, and more efficient. We
>don't have to wait on HLV technology, space based materials technology,
>large scale space construction technology, or anything else to start
>deploying a totally nuclear energy system today. We know how, we only
>lack the will.

For some of us is isn't that we 'lack the will' but rather that we
will the lack.  ;-)

I'm quite happy depending on the middle men  for a while longer and 
only getting back into nuclear when there is evidence that it will
be done far better than it has been done in the past...  The world 
has 50 years of oil (and gas and ... and much much more coal), so I 
see no reason to hurry back into nuclear just yet.  There is time 
enough for a crash program of construction in 20 years if global
warming can be proven to exist (and shown to be a problem...)
-- 

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.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: rad
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:05:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Sep4.160508.13743
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep3.133819.29541@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>Remember, you said *most* farms and ranches.  I have no doubt that
>remote farms and ranches may find wind useful.  I have never seen a
>working windmill on an eastern farm.

I know of one that *almost* works near Americus Ga. The farmer who
owns it got a little tired, not to mention a little scared, of climbing
a 70 foot tower to repair the balky thing. He installed a cheap, reliable,
and completely controllable electric pump instead. Now he can have water
when he needs it, not when the wind happens to be blowing strongly enough.
And he can fix it at ground level when necessary. The average age of
farmers in the US is 57. Most don't like to climb anymore.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4118 sci.environment:10844
From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:28:15 GMT

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

[End Quote]

Ahem.  I don't think so.  One prof I had claimed that  just  
the Venzuala and Athabasca tarsands EACH have more oil than  
ALL the worlds known oil reserves.  The Wyoming area oil  
shales are in turn bigger yet.
 
From: brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Peter Brooks)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:34:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: rad
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: sci.energy

>/ hpcc01:sci.energy / dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) /  6:43 am  Sep  1, 1992 /
>In article <2819.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>
>>... the fact that most farms and ranches still use
>>wind pumps to obtain water from an aquifer ...
>
>I don't believe this.  Most farms have access to the grid, and
>electric pumps are easier to install and more reliable.
>
I do.  On the bigger farms (say, west of the Mississippi), the water
tank may be damned far from the power lines.  You still see active
windmills in the Great Plains and further west.  I haven't driven through
Illinois lately, where the 160 acre family farm has evolved into the
640 acre corporate farms (as my old college roommate told me), but the
windmills were moderately popular even there in the smaller farms.
If nothing else, windpower is pretty cheap once you have the 
tower built.

Note that in ranches in the west (I'm thinking Arizona, here), in the
winter time the lines can get pretty shaky, while the wind is reliable.
I visited a working ranch near Prescott last year.  The ranch was
established in 1976, and it used a windmill pump for the domestic
water supply, even though electric power was available to the pump's
location.

Pete Brooks