HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevinc@solman.kpc.com (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:08:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.014943.1904@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
|> In article <1jr751INN16a@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
|> Blanket statements don't always hold ...  speaking of which, what 
|> non-resistive electric blankets are you aware of? ;-)

Hey.  I think you're on to something there.  Thing of all of the
energy that's being WASTED in the world by heating blankets with electrical
energy.  What this world needs is a gas heated blanket!!

Them we'll send one to Saddam.

-- 
Kevin Cameron

"Those who will trade essential liberty for promise of security will
 have neither" - Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Oil Use Could b
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 05:58:23 GMT

In article <5742.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren)  writes:
>PD>What these no-more-oil-use fantasies ignore is the response of the oil
>PD>market.  The OPEC countries would respond as follows.  First, they
>PD>would view this as a threat to the long term market for oil.  So they
>PD>would have no incentive to preserve their oil stockpiles.  OPEC
>PD>production (mainly, mideast production) would increase, as the
>PD>countries try to maintain their accustomed incomes.  Oil prices would
>PD>fall.
>  Yes, exactly so. Which is why it's foolhardy to fuss with the market. 
>The best alternative is to remove oil SUBSIDIES, which were contrived for 
>domestic producers, and which just enrich OPEC guys. Let alternative fuels 
>develop on a level playing field, and at the same time exact a cost for 
>pollution.
>
Please list these Subsidies and give some examples.  I am not aware of all of
them.  There are subsidies for some alternate fuels like alcohol from
corn at least in some farm states.



--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO            | A life consisting exclusively of things
Boulder, CO                    | that are Good for You is bad for you.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu         |                      Kelvin Throop
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16      |
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7108 talk.environment:5628
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: FEATURE: "Energy Without Oil" Executive Summary
Keywords: energy environment oil press
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:39:12 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan21.105316.12424@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:

|In the global warming report, there is documented two cars; the first
|from volvo does 71mpg, the second 92 mpg from peugeot. Also I remember
|reading about an interesting design in the press a year or so back where
|there was a combined diesel electric engine. While the car was running
|at steady speeds the electric engine did most of the work. During
|braking the battery was charged, whilst accelerating the diesel comes
|into play. The mpg rating claimed was around 100mpg, I think it was
|Volkswagen that made the car. 

Are these real world cars, or cars that were designed to maximize mileage
at the expense of everything else.

I to remember reading about a 100mph car, but I don't remember who made it.
This car was a single seater and was so streamlined the driver had to lie
down.  It had 3 tires inflated to a very high pressure, the low contact area
would be dangerous in wet weather.
The engine was only a couple of horse power.
The car ran on a closed track at a constant speed of about 20mph, ie no
stopping and starting.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:37:53 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
 
>any purpose at all if you so choose, but you expect the rest of the country
>to pay for the road under your manicured driving toes.  They have that
>kind of tax in Britain, where heavy taxes are loaded on the average Joe,
>just so some royalty can have some nice castles to play in.
 
And Americans have no such tax - a tax that favors the rich? I am
surprised.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:21:45 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan25.013449.1720@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <59049@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan22.093901.13563@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>
>>>Even if they make a special exception for table salt, as I sit here
>>>thinking about the pervasiveness of chlorine compounds in the chemical
>>>industry...  the mind boggles.   Moderates think I'm exaggerating
>>>to the point of ranting when I say the hard-core greenies want to
>>>put an end to industrial civilization.  Unfortunately, it's not an
>>>exaggeration.  
>>
>>Please tell us what other industrial uses of chlorine you have in mind.
>
>In the worlds of Dr. McCoy "My God, man " didn't you ever take an
>organic chemistry class?  Heck, start with swimming pool acid, bleach,

I must have not made my point clearly. A Greenpeace press release, from
Austria I believe, calls for reduction of, maybe even elimination of,
industrial uses of chlorine. The self proclaimed defenders of science and
technlogy on the net: without reading the report itself, attack Greenpeace
on the grounds that table salt contains chlorine. This attack must rest on
one of two premises: both of which are idiotic. The first premise is that
table salt is made by combining chlorine and sodium in an industrial
process. The second is that when GP critiqued the chlorine industry, they
were calling for the elimination of all chlorine compounds from the planet,
both industrial and natural.  In my ever so humble opinion,
if one is going to be a standard bearer for the scientific method,
one should do a little better than this. 

>I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:32:27 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1jr5ceINN16a@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.151948.20009@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>On the news last night:  Greenpeace releases a commissioned report (from
>>someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown accident
>>in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds than 
>>the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
>>
>>To make the point, the Greenpeace spokesman shakes a pair of dice for 15
>>seconds while stating the above information (visual crutch telegraphed from
>>miles away), and then tosses the dice across the table.
>
>I take it, then, that Greenhype, true to form, neglected to mention the
>time-frame appropriate to their estimate.


Tell me, Carl, do you divine the contents of Greenpeace reports by staring
at the entrails of a VAX? Do you have some other basis, other than reading
the report, of course, for your assumption?

>For the innumerates like Jym Dyer among you, if I get to pick the timeframe, I

Voltaire or Diderot pointed out some time ago that the ignorance of a
person who has read *one* book far exceeds that of someone who has read
none. Similarly, for those who confuse their mastery of elementary
mathematics with "numeracy".

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:40:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.202207.6778@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
[...]
>>I'd be delighted to have a one ton capacity 4x4
>>that does 0-50 MPH in under 6 seconds and gets 38 MPG.
>
>Serious error here ... that should be 0-60 in under 6 seconds ... ;-)

Or, better yet, 1/4-mile times in under 12 seconds.  :-)

>E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:15:49 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1jtsdpINN1pd@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <59065@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>I take it, then, that Greenhype, true to form, neglected to mention the
>>>time-frame appropriate to their estimate.
>>
>>Tell me, Carl, do you divine the contents of Greenpeace reports by staring
>>at the entrails of a VAX? Do you have some other basis, other than reading
>>the report, of course, for your assumption?
>
>No, Yackadamn, I base it on experience with GreenHype press releases and with
>my experience with, in this case, Jeremy's past postings.

In other words, you invented contents for a report you didn't read. High
standards of scientific reasoning indeed.


>
>>>For the innumerates like Jym Dyer among you, if I get to pick the timeframe, I
>>
>>Voltaire or Diderot pointed out some time ago that the ignorance of a
>>person who has read *one* book far exceeds that of someone who has read
>>none. Similarly, for those who confuse their mastery of elementary
>>mathematics with "numeracy".
>
>And, we can then compare that with your technophobic ravings, right,

Technophobia is a generalized fear of technology. You still seem to have
some trouble with quantifiers: (forall x)P(x) cannot be deduced from
P(c) for some c.  Ignorance of this basic principle of deduction leads to
erroneous conclusions. 

>Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.energy:7179 talk.environment:5681
From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:12:22 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1993Jan21.191031.3316@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Rod Anderson) writes:
# I really don't know why anyone would consider Greenpeace press
# releases and research to be any less biased than R. J. Reynolds
# studies that show cigarettes are safe.  Greenpeace is a political
# group that has made up its mind about the lifestyle all of us are to
# follow.  It then commissions studies and research to prove its
# conclusions.  I consider Greenpeace "research " to be on the same
# level as "research" conducted by General Motors to show cars don't
# cause pollution.  I take "research" done by any political special
# interest group like Greenpeace with a big grain of salt.

Maybe. However the Global Warming Report was not actually researched by
Greenpeace. It was commissioned by Greenpeace, and several scientists were
asked to write sections in the report. The introduction, and the final
chapter are written by Jeremy Legget the UK Scientific Director of
Greenpeace. The section in the science of global warming was written by
Stephen Schneider and draws mainly on the IPCC report on global warming,
in short this is based on work already done and widely accepted in the
field. Amory Lovins gave his expertise on energy matters
to the writing energy efficiency essay. I have seen his research in many 
publications and have seen it confirmed independently by other people
in other publications. I have no reason to doubt that the figures he
gives are untrue. Most of the research in this report, is stuff that
I've seen time and again in other reports from other organisations.The
sources given do not seem to be biased towards environmentalist groups, 
and is very wide ranging and comprehensive. Each chapter gets around
70 odd references, many of which give multiple sources for their data.
In short, this book at least provides credible sources for the data, and
draws and the expertise of many scientists who are experts in their 
fields. The pinch of salt is not really needed.

James


-- 
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:25:14 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan20.234658.2413@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.185150.16256@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.151948.20009@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>>On the news last night:  Greenpeace releases a commissioned report (from
>>>someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown accident
>>>in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds than 
>>>the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
>>
>>Jym, do you have a copy of this report somewhere? I'd like to take a look
>>at it. You may be missing 6 or 7 zeros after that 17.
>>
>>>Favourite line:  "We're talking -- literally -- about people lying dead in
>>>the street..."  (Greenpeace spokesman to reporter)
>>>
>>>Biggest understatement (paraphrased):  "These numbers don't agree with ours."
>>>(Ontario Hydro spokesman)
>>>
>>>Second biggest understatement (paraphrased):  "Making this kind of statement
>>>borders on the irresponsible."  (Ontario Hydro spokesman)
>>
>>Could Greenpeace be sued over something like this? 
>>
>>Tino
>>-- 
>
>Probably not.  Their attorneys would plead incompetence.

Since all estimates in this "field" are backup up with a lot of hand-waving
it would be  tough to prove anything more than use of different
assumptions.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 10:49:39 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <59124@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>It must be a relief not to have to feign. The subject of the GP press
>release was the report.

No, Victor.  The subject of the press release was the claim that there's a 1 in
17 chance of a CANDU reactor experiencing a meltdown.  Drop your intellectually
dishonest pose and address the fact that the commercial was intended to be seen
by lots of people whom Greenpeace never expects to read the report, and whom
Greenpeace can confidently assume will assume a time frame of one year of less
for that probability.  C'mon, Victor, you know that much propaganda.   Quit
your lying and address the issue at hand.  Or is that asking you to mar your
otherwise pure anti-nuke ideological stand, tovarisch?

>>Jeremy Whitlock described TELEVISION COMMERCIAL from GreenHype.  I pointed out
>>the shortcomings of that commercial, as described by Jeremy.  You take me to
>>task for not reading the "report."  Well, shit-for-brains, the subject under
>
>No. I take you to task for assuming that the report did not offer any
>time frame, and then, on the basis of this completely unfounded assumption,
>complaining about the lack of scientific rigor in the report. 

Victor, do you have a problem with the English language?  I'm talking about the
goddamned TELEVISION COMMERCIAL, which GreenHype can confidently assume is ALL
that most of the viewers will ever see.

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

>I'm also constantly amazed by your apparent belief that calling someone
>"shit-for-brains" is verifies anything more than your intellectual
>limitations.

Sorry, Vic, but it seems a most accurate description of you, given your posts.

>>objecting to your willful stupidity, your intellectual dishonesty, or your
>>naiveti, whichever one's applicable (though my impression is that it's your
>>overwhelming intellectual dishonesty, tovarisch, which causes you to bray as
>>you do).
>
>Now we are getting snippy: "tovarisch" indeed.

Da, tovarisch.  Aren't you the same Victor Yodaiken who, a month or two ago
praised socialist governments because their avowed aims coincided with your own
ideology, despite the fact that their actual records showed no correlation at
all with their avowed goals?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: petel@augustana.ab.ca
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Are bikes really less polluting?
Date: 27 Jan 93 11:44:23 MST
Organization: Augustana University College, Camrose, Alberta

In response to the posting on "Are bikes really less polluting:"

I need to point something out in relation to the somewhat idealistic
concept of having a world which doesn't seem to have any form of auto-
mated transportation at all:
WE LIVE IN CANADA, A SEMI-ARCTIC CLIMATE.
This may seem somewhat irrelavent, but there are two main reasons why I
bring this up:
The first is that in a country of this size, it is necessary to have some
forms of inter-city transport, and while bikes do the trick, they turn a
trip from Edmonton to Vancouver into a couple of weeks long trip, rather 
than two days.
The second reason is that in this part of the country, the option of riding
all through the year is limited to those of a particularly hearty stature.
Having lived on Vancouver Island for two years, and having spent most of my
time there riding my bike the seven miles to work, I am familiar with the 
possibilities of pleasurable, non-poluting modes of transport.  Living now
in the near North, I can safely say that this is an option, but one which 
poses some dangers:  hypothermia, frost-bite, exposure, etc.
Some people can withstand these tempuratures, but some can not.
This is just a little note to point out the dangers of going too far in our
attempts to make the world more environmentally sound.  We need to take our
climate and conditions into account as well.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: trh2m@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Thomas Richard Hubbard)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:27:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.225328.27641@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>
>Okay, Victor, here's your big chance:
>
>Tell us all how the chances of a meltdown from a CANDU are 1 in 17, not 
>1 in 17,000,....
>
>I want to see your model, your assumptions, and your *measured data* to 
>back this up. 

While you're at it, please explain what you mean by the "chances of a meltown
from a CANDU are 1 in 17."  Is this supposed to mean over the course of a
year or for a certain number of operating hours?  Is this supposed to apply
for any specific CANDU, or all CANDU's together?  This statement says
nothing until you define the sample space.

Tom Hubbard

The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of The
University of Virginia or The Department of the Navy.
From: hln5451@zeus.tamu.edu (NOBOA, HOMERO LUIS)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Help on oil spill cleanup companies
Date: 21 Jan 1993 09:39 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

I would like to know names and (if possible) telephone numbers of 
companies dealing with: oil spills, enviromental cleanup and polution 
control. Your help shall be appreciated.

Homero:

hln5451@zeus.tamu.edu

Thanks
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7090 talk.environment:5613
From: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: FEATURE: "Energy Without Oil" Executive Summary
Keywords: energy environment oil press
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:53:16 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

In article <1993Jan20.045415.4178@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>Jym sez:
>*  The phasing out of oil is achieved through major  improvements
>in energy efficiency, especially in the transport and electricity
>sectors.  The  average  fuel efficiency  of  cars,  for  example,
>increases  from a current average of 24.5 miles per UK gallon  to
>more  than 96 mpg over the next 40 years. Through  the  extensive
>uptake  of  combined heat and power, the  average  efficiency  of
>power stations is doubled.
>
>
>Tell me how. I'm intrigued. 
>
>Tino
In the global warming report, there is documented two cars; the first
from volvo does 71mpg, the second 92 mpg from peugeot. Also I remember
reading about an interesting design in the press a year or so back where
there was a combined diesel electric engine. While the car was running
at steady speeds the electric engine did most of the work. During
braking the battery was charged, whilst accelerating the diesel comes
into play. The mpg rating claimed was around 100mpg, I think it was
Volkswagen that made the car. 

As for the efficiency of power stations, it is well known that CHP can
obtain 70% efficiency or more, by sending waste heat to heat nearby
buildings.

James



--
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7216 talk.environment:5713