HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:07:12 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Jul28155410@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>No, the question was: is this 45GW less than current generation
>capacity or 45GW less than we figure we'll need given demographic 
>and industrial trends and no attempt at efficiency. The first case
>allows you to retire your "worst" capacity, the second case allows
>you to build less - that's a difference. Reason I ask, is that figures
>like this are almost always compared to projected demand if... 
>rather than current demand. It's sort of like government budgets,
>savings are only relative to wildly optimistic projections, not
>reality.
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  If you ever have to go to Shoeburyness			*
>*  Take the A-road, the ok road, that's the best!		*
>*  Go motoring on The A13!	- BB 1983			*

Clearly, it is the second case, 45GW less than projected demand.  Your
original point was that you didn't think efficiency could deliver on
the scale of GW.  Here we see that savings of this magnitude are being
made without a significant effort.  The EPRI report shows that if the
conservative MTP efficiency were completely achieved, then efficiency
savings would match expected demand increase between 1987 and 2000.
The potential for savings is enormous, is far cheaper than building
new plants, and should be explored before such plants are built.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: rodger@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:35:55 GMT
Organization: The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California

In article <R4Q-##A@engin.umich.edu>, blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:

> The only system I can think of that currently makes all driving decisions
> for you is mass transit.
> 
> Ken

Well, as a previous poster pointed out, most of the nations commercial
airlines fly automated systems.  I haven't heard of any fatalities related
to this.  There almost certainly will be but they almost certainly will be
caused by a failure of maintenance or procedure (ie. human error).  I
don't have a big problem flying on such a system because the number of
systems is small enough, and the knowledge and motivation of however is
doing the maintenance is high enough that failures will be extremely rare.
I would still argue that creating a system of similar complexity for
automobiles would be a disaster.  Both the failure rate, due to improper
or neglected maintenace, and the number of systems involved would be
several orders of magnitude greater that what is now working in the
commercial air system.

     Rodger
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9936 sci.physics:11564 sci.energy:3633
From: jkwatson@amhux1.amherst.edu (John K. Watson '92)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:35:19 GMT
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA

blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark) writes:
: In article <1625@heurikon.heurikon.com> daves@ex.heurikon.com (Dave Scidmore) writes:
: >
: driver.  The only working example of this is automatic transmissions.  You
: will note that many people refuse to buy automatic transmissions because
: they want control of the vehicle, despite the availability of automatic
: transmissions.
: 
There ARE other reasons for not getting automatic tranmissions, you
know...such as fuel economy, safety, relative cheapness of repair, etc.
And, most importantly, standard tranmissions are more FUN!!!!
:)
		John
jkwatson@amh.amherst.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10009 sci.physics:11646
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:48:09 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul24.012730.22675@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	Out of the 40 cent/gallon Federal gas tax, 1.5 c/gal goes to
>mass transit (about 4%). And that's not much at all.

The Federal fuel tax is $.15/gal for gasoline and $.25/gal for diesel.
The rest must be your state and local tax. So mass transit is raiding
about 10% of the Federal Highway Trust Fund.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.230815.6722@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

>affect the waste issue?  Is the CANDU design in use today?

     This is a joke, right?

                               dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9872 sci.physics:11502 sci.energy:3585
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:08:47 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Jul23.183503.9094@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.173642.9571@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.160604.5987@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     I repeat again.  There was no increase in generating capacity
>     in CA in the 80's?

Primary new capacity came from efficiency. 
>
>     As far as 'demand side management' goes, there is only so much we can
>     do economically as some seem to always forget. 

And just how much do you think we can do?  
>
>                              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)
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: [transport] using fourteen-seater busses
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:12:05 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul30.145953.7538@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <9207282036.AA01862@efi.com> dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung) writes:
::
::     I wonder if anyone know whether it is feasible to use less
::fifty-seater busses and have more small fourteen-seater minibusses
::(or vans, if you will).  This will allow more lines or more frequent
::busses, and a lower cost per bus.  Then we can have more feeder busses
::from/to train stations, and then most people can just take bus-train-
::bus to work.  Ha!

:Sure it's feasible. We can even extend the idea a little bit further
:and use 1 seater buses that can take direct routes to their destinations.
:The only time a bus of any size operates efficiently is when it's near 
:capacity. The only time it's near capacity is when it's on a high density 
:express route. On low density routes it's less than half full at least half 
:the time. A one passenger vehicle is always at capacity when in use.

	Thank you.

	You've just reinvented the motorcycle. Now why don't you try
switching over to riding one?

	The important cost is not the cost per vehicle, but the cost
per passenger. Big buses win out over small buses and minivans and
cars here, when one assumes the same occupancy rate.

/Loren
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:07:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.203511.10207@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.145601.1101@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>turbine with the waste heat used to power a steam turbine.  In fact, when
>utilities reduce peak demand by shifting some of the use to off-peak hours 
>indicate a need for MORE baseload capacity, not less as you've claimed.

Efficiency reduces total use and peak demand.  Why do you think _only_
peak demand is the issue?  If you will read the article, you will see 
that shifting use is not a factor.
>
>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)
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:11:45 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <JMC.92Jul27094125@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.145214.23048@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

:	   I think that the name was the _National_ City Lines. The
:   GM-led consortium included Firestone Tire and Mack Truck. Firestone
:   Tire's excuse is rather obvious :-), most rail vehicles run on steel
:   wheels without rubber tires. However, there is less excuse for GM and
:   Mack Truck, which could have gotten into the trolley business without
:   too much trouble.

:I suspect this is a tale that has grown in the telling.  Where is
:the evidence.  Also did GM take over Adelaide too?

	I've seen this mentioned in several places, but I guess I
should try to find a primary source for this. The GM-led consortium
was found guilty of antitrust-law violantions and it was fined $5000.

:He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

	Same to you, buster.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor:  Blazing Ta
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:15:53 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

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.
>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.
>
>Ny source of information is World Book Encyclopedia, 1955 edition,
>vol. 2, pages 873 and 876.  (Entry for "Bomb")

Either you misunderstood the World Book entry, or the World Book's
editors have gotten better advice from munitions experts since 
1955. According to the 1981 edition of the World Book, blast,
fragmentation, shock, and "vacuum" pressure cause the effects of
the explosion. Blast is far and away the largest contributor
in a GP bomb. If you ever saw one dropped on a building, you
would immediately notice the walls of the building blow *outward*
from the tremendous blast overpressure. The residual damage done
by the air returning to the center after the blast can't exceed
14 PSI even if the bomb blast created a *perfect* vacuum at sea
level, which it doesn't.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:26:45

While I oppose measures to restrict urban sprawl, I don't regard all
downtowns as dead or dying.  There may be a use for concentrated
areas, and some people may like living in them.  My solution is
technological as usual.  I would like to see a city with a whole
district of densely packed high rise buildings, both residential
and commercial, and maybe even light manufacturing.  It would take
into account people's preference for cars.  It would have an enormous
amount of underground parking - enough.  It would have two or three
levels of traffic, perhaps two vehicular levels and a pedestrian
level above them.  There is an area in downtown Taipei in which
the sidewalks are at the second story level and cross the streets
at that level.

Such a city would be expensive to build, but it might be attractive
enough so that enough people and companies would pay the necessary
high rents.  By the way, the high density might also make public
transportation economical.  An area around the high rises should be
reserved by its owners for the building of more high rises, i.e.
should not be allowed to fill up with privileged uses that could not
be displaced.  High taxes, based on the potential value of the land,
with no exemption for nonprofit users, would keep it reserved.

I suspect its strongest attraction would be for families with a
wide variety of interests and a wide variety of friends.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:51:51 GMT

Do the figures of cost of highways include the cost of highway patrol, and of
a fair share of the judicial system?

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul23.034645.2791@nmt.edu>
	<1992Jul24.205505.14538@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Jul28.072820.1364@ruacad.ac.runet.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:25:27

Please explain where you get the figure of $15 billion per year
nuclear subsidies.
--
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: 28 Jul 92 01:58:42 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Jul27163110@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <50956@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>   No. I think, rather, that arguments of the form "the technical problems with
>   the nuclear fuel cycle are solved, only crazy environmental extremists
>   think otherwise", are not supported by the facts. The French experience
>   shows that the engineering of large scale nuclear power systems remains
>   an experimental project, and that even though simple arithmetic may "prove"
>   that an engineering technique works, the universe does not have to care.
>
>Let's pursue this question a little further.  The breeders were
>frankly experimental, but how about the regular non-breeder French
>nuclear program that produces 75 percent of French electricity?
>Do you consider them still experimental?

No. But, we are arguing about the fuel cycle, not whether or not it is
possible to generate power using fission.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
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 17:09:23 GMT

In article <10023@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.014438.8953@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>>mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>>houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>>>>  Environmentalists do not advocate coal as an energy source.
>
>>>  Then what do you advocate in the short term? ...
>
>>How about natural gas?
>
>While natural gas has some real advantages as a fuel (ease of use
>and transport, low pollution) it also has a severe disadvantage:  it
>is expensive compared to coal for the same heat value.  A massive 
>switch from coal to natural gas would drive up the price even 
>further.  Some power companies do use it but mostly as a back-up for 
>peak demand periods.  (Of course natural gas also puts about as much
>greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as does coal.)

Actually natural gas puts out less greenhouse gases than standard coal
plants today.  I seem to remember that it is about 30% less, but I don't
have the source handy.  There are cleaner coal technologies on the way,
but they will be more expensive than todays coal plants.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:41:27 GMT

>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.
>>
>>I dunno about Greenpeace, but Ralph Nader did try to ban microwave
>>ovens for that reason.  If Nader is responsible for the slower
>>penetration of microwave ovens in the U.S. as compared to Japan,
>>he killed a lot of children.  No-one has been injured by a microwave
>>oven, but the conventional cooking that might have been displaced
>>partly by microwave cooking has proabably killed a few hundred

	I dunno.  I very nearly got hit in the head when the door came
flying open on the microwave at home.  Of course this was also my fault
because I was following Jearl Walker's instructions-of-doom from the
ill-fated installment of the ~Amateur Scientist~ column.  The one that
blew the doors off microwaves around the world.

	It turns out that it is very easy to prepare superheated water
in a microwave;  and that such water can boil with explosive force if
you're not careful.  Microwaves can catch on fire too.

	Of course,  similar accidents can happen with a gas or
electric oven.  Somebody very foolish could,  say,  fill a mason jar with
water and screw on the cap and put it in the oven.  One should not
underestimate the power of explosions driven by expanding gases inside
glass and plastic containers.  Hell,  the other night,  some friends of
mine bought dry ice and we made some dry ice bombs out of two liter bottles.
We hurled them into a vacant lot but we didn't realize that it would
take about 40 minutes for the pressure to build up.  We were sitting around,
real frustrated,  when we heard the first one go off.  We had already set
off a little one,  and this disturbed the neighbors who called the police
after the second explosion.  We were scared that the third one would go
off when the cops were around,  but it blew up about five minutes after
they left.  This got the neighbors to come out with a flashlight and
start inspecting their house for damage.  Obviously the thing was pretty
loud (but not as powerful as Claire's oil field bomb :-)  Seeing that
stupidity with either a conventional or microwave oven could make
such an explosion in your very own home,  we probably have some accidents
every year.



-- 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:58:38 GMT

You never cease to amaze me.  You really think people have a better quality of life when they 
life when they cannot drive where they want to go?  Tell me, do YOU own a car?
Why don't you stop being a hypocrite and practice what you preach rather 
than trying to dictate to the rest of us what you think we ought to do?  What
makes you such an expert on what would make ME happier?  The evidence that has
appeared so far indicates that your knowledge on this subject is quite weak, as  is
your grasp of the concept of individual rights.

--Brian
From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Date: 27 Jul 92 04:58:16 GMT
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <1992Jul26.220120.19469@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.070132.13837@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:

>>I've been thinking more about the argument that whales lack a complex
>>social structure, and therefore lack higher intelligence.  A better criterion
>>than complexity, however, is quality: do some whale species have a social
>>structure more desirable than our own?  One that leads to a better life?  I
>>have only an interested layman's knowledge of whales, but my
>>impression is that the social activities of some whale species
>>consists primarily of: playing, eating and humping.
>
>You forgot one thing.  Dying.  Personally, I think that any social
>structure that leaves the question of the continuing existence of your
>entire species up to the whims of a totally different species is quite
>inferior to one that does not no matter what other benefits it may
>have.

Declarations which begin "Personally, I think...." are irrelevant.

But, suppose whales were highly intelligent creatures: what would you have 
them do?  Invent nuclear weapons?  To prove to us they are capable of a
better social structure?  The ability to use weapons, such as handguns, de-
pends considerably on what your body can do rather than what your mind can
do; the possession of rights depends on what your mind can do.

What would you have human cultures do whose technological & military
level is below that of the US's by an order of magnitude or two, and whose
"continuing existence" is "up to the whims" of George Bush?  Acknowledge that
they must, therefore, lack any rights?  "Personally" you must "think" that
the social structure of a pacifist community is inferior to that of
Iraq, but can you provide evidence for what you think?


>Finally, if you like their social structure so much why don't you
>emulate it?  There are still flower children, etc.  Of course you
>won't get the best medical care and you'll be hungry sometimes but
>whales have those problems too. Somehow I think you appreciate the
>benefits of our social structure more than you are willing to admit.

I don't get the best medical care now, and I do not live the life of
a flower child or whale.  Do you have a source for your implied
claim that a higher percentage of whales go hungry than of people?  An
awful lot of people go hungry.  I don't appreciate "our" (who are
we talking about here, anyway?) social structure
at all; it sucks.

-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
From: dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:30:06 GMT

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.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu