HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: Oil Use Could b
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:14:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) 

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.



---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#0 . Unregistered Evaluation Copy
                                                                                                    
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:41:09 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press rele
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <5698.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren)  writes:

>  I think the REAL problem (and maybe this is only MY problem) is that the 
>noxious deadly material is brought together and concentrated from all over 
>the world, and then it produces useful energy which is disbursed, and then 
>there is a horrendous residue of deadly stuff left over. Seems to me that 
>this is the wrong way 'round. Seems to me we're just serving the old god 
>of the 19th century: spend anything on centralized capital costs to save 
>money on marginal costs. The ugly side-effect is the Love Canal or 
>Hanford or Chernobyl phenomena, which brings home the point of the 
>deadliness of this stuff, AND how easily safety precautions are ignored by 
>executives and bureaucrats under pressure.
>   Thus, it seems to me that distributed production of energy makes more 
>sense. Which is one of the reasons I like Solar power and fuel alcohol.
>

Is the above-mentioned "Hanford...phenomenon(a)" a suggestion that there
have been impacts on human health in the region?  If so, I would
appreciate knowing just what they were.

I have mortality data for all cancer types from 1950-87 on my computer,
and both the upwind and downwind regions and individual counties are
significantly below normal for the U.S.

Could the author of this statement be using widely-held and cherished
beliefs (a la Greenpeace or HEAL press releases) as a basis, or are my
data all wrong?




Xref: sparky sci.energy:7221 talk.environment:5720
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Greenpeace Research
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:38:26 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> 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.

=o= First off, let's separate the apples and oranges:  Press
releases and research are entirely different beasts.  You seem
to be talking about the research here, not the press releases.

=o= It is folly to believe that *any* research is going to be
free from bias, especially from the bias of the funders of that
research.  All research should be looked at with a critical eye,
and compared with similar research.

=o= We know that R. J. Reynolds studies are wrong because their
conclusions can't be reproduced by other researchers, not just
because it's conducted by R. J. Reynolds.

=o= Likewise, it cannot be assumed that Greenpeace studies are
wrong because they're conducted by Greenpeace.  Such a thing
would need to be shown by comparing their studies with those
of other researchers.

> It then commissions studies and research to prove its
> conclusions.

=o= You have provided no evidence for that claim.
    <_Jym_>
From: duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 20:08:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

>/ hpfcso:sci.energy / jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) /  8:47 am  Jan 19, 1993 /
>
>b) Speaking of fair, you wouldn't be one of those who bellows like a 
>cut bull everytime it is proposed to tax bicycles so that they pay
>their share of road taxes, would you?  If you are not, you are a minority

And why shouldn't bicyclists bellow?  Do you know of any city where there
is a comprehensive bicycle transportation system?  I've never seen one.
Only random networks of unconnected bike lanes that may or may not go
anywhere useful.  It can be downright dangerous to get anywhere on a bike.
Snow is not usually cleared from these lanes in the winter, and in the summer
they are littered with gravel, branches, glass, and dead animals.

If motorists had to deal with similar conditions, we'd really hear some
bitching.

Gas taxes don't come close to paying for the costs of building and maintaining
highways.  The portion of my sales and income taxes that goes for highways
certainly pays for the snow-covered strip of asphalt and gravel that I
ride my bike on, probably hundreds of times over.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:29:27 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 <59076@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
Victor, like the jackass he's demonstrated himself to be, brays:

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

Now, Victor, are you trying to tell us that you don't understand the difference
between a television commercial (which this thread is about) and a scientific
report?  Or are you once again trying to excuse the perfidies of GreenHype by
feigning stupidity?

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
discussion was a television commercial.  Which is more deplorable:  My
assumption that GreenHype used their standard tactics, or you willful ignorance
of the topic under discussion?  C'mon, Victor, the sort of ideologically-based
blindness you're exhibiting in this thread is undermining whatever credibility
you might still have retained. Now, are you trying to tell us that GreenHype
expects all, or most, or even a significant percentage of the viewers of that
commercial to look at the "report" allegedly associated with the commercial?

No, Yackadamn, GreenHype is expecting the viewers to take their word on faith.
It's GreenHype's intellectually dishonest approach in their press releases and
their commercials to which I'm objecting.  And, in this post, I'm also
objecting to your willful stupidity, your intellectual dishonesty, or your
naivet, 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, shit-for-brains, would you care to address the subject at hand?  Or is
doing so risking your ideological purity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:37:03 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
 
>jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:
>>>And why shouldn't bicyclists bellow?  Do you know of any city where there
>>>is a comprehensive bicycle transportation system?  I've never seen one.
>>
>>No, and I know of no US comprehensively developed transportation based on
>>the rickshaw or the pogo stick or for people who walk on their hands
>>either.
>
>Of course, a large percentage of Americans own bikes. Can you say the same
>for pogo sticks and rickshaws? Lots of Americans use bikes as transportation.
>Is the same true for pogo sticks and rickshaws?
 
If the idea of a tax on petrol/gas is to meet the cost of the usage of
your roads, then how are cyclists to be taxed? Perhaps you would
advocate a HUGE increase in replacement cost of tyres [tires]? Perhaps
all bicycles should be registered (with corresponding registration
fee).
 
The big argument FOR petrol/gas taxes over here was to (apart from
ecological reasons etc) try to get back some of the money spent on the
maintenance of the roads. The trouble with charging a tax by the
litre/gallon is that it doesn't correlate to the size of a vehicle. I
can drive a heavily laden utility doing untold damage to the edges of
roads and yet get similar km/l [mpg] results as a "hotted-up" car. I
pay the same amount of tax, yet do more damage.
 
Even though it may be seen as some type of panacea for halting the
production of greenhouse gases, paying for roads, et al, it definitely
isn't.
 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:33:15 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <51905@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.125508.8004@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> In article <51893@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

>> tax. BTW police departments are net revenue generators in our state.
>> The costs of policing the roads are more than offset by the fines
>> collected.
>
>They must write a lot of tickets.  One officer with a police cruiser and
>radar costs about $200,000 a year (salary, benefits, car depreciation,
>maintainance and gas, radar depreciation, maintainance and calibration,
>distributed cost of officer training, etc.).  If the average ticket is
>$100, he'd have to write 2000 a year.  Figuring he spends half his time
^^^^^
This is way low.  It is about $86 for the 'low end' ticket (65 in a 55,
which I got last year... 8-{ ) and up to $1000+ for a DUI.  

>in court, then he'd have to write 2 an hour while on patrol.  That's pretty
>easy, but to do it constantly must be incredible.  Then again, if that's

Pretty easy?  Heck, I've seen officers do 4 tickets in one stop!  
(Also, unfortunately, I was one of the 4 ...).  And it took him
about 15 minutes to do the lot of us.

>all he does, he's probably pretty good at it.

You got it!

>Denver has the second smogiest air in the nation behind LA.  I don't
>know the factors contributing to that, however.  I've never been to Denver.
>(People have this clean image of Colorado, but Denver is smogier than
>Pittsburg, NYC, DC, etc.)

The factors contributing to it are the basin it sits in and the
mountains around them.

-- 

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.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:53:11 CST
From: <U59791@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Overutilization/Free Energy Devices

I was wondering about the Free Energy/Overutilization devices.  I tried to find
 a book about Telsa, and haven't found it in my library.  Is there an FTP site
for this information.  I've read about radiant energy as a potential source.  I
 grant it I'm uninformed but that's what I'm trying to rectify.  It seems to me
 that if energy was free the entire economic system of the world would
completely collapse.  This is due to the fact that all gas stations, power
plants,transformers, oil wells and companys, and natural gas companies would
fail, thus causing the banks that have invested in them to fail thereby
resulting in the failure of the world banking system, resulting in chaos.  I
could be wrong but look at what happened in the 1930's when there was the Oil
glut.  The government went in with the military and shut down oil wells.
This because people were begining to have finacial problems and the banks were
worried about a possible collaspe again.  (Read Yergin 'The Prize')
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
|   Shane Vincent         |  SHANE_VINCENT@CPSNET.CPS.EDU               |
|                         |                                             |
|                         |  U59791@UICVM.UIC.EDU                       |
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
Subject: RE: True Costs of French
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:07:28 GMT

In a previous article, dbc@sybus.com (David Cameron) wrote:
>In article <1993Jan19.215714.9617@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>>In article <2011@spam.ua.oz> jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>The SuperPheonix fiasco certainly
>>>would take a lot of explaining!
>>
>>Yes, I'd like to explain the technical details, but it's more difficult to
>>understand than the usual Greenpeace claim, "Nukes suck".
>>
>>Tino
> 
>I for for one would be interested in an explanation at about the tech level
>of Scientific American [or perhaps one of their sidebar mini-articles]
>Please expand any abbr [abbreviations] on first use.
> 
>Those of us who read this group for information will appreciate
>the momentary focus on SCI.energy. ;-}
> 
>Dave


The SuperPheonix, other fast breeder reactor proposals and large scale 
commitments to fuel reprocessing were conceived long ago.  At that time,
the planning assumptions were that the world's installed nuclear 
capacity would grow much more rapidly than actually proved to be the case
and that the world's supply of readily accessible uranium was very small.

Fast breeder reactors and reprocessing are intended to at least partially
protect nuclear electricity production from rapidly escalating costs 
of uranium.  At the time many of these decisions were made, the price of
uranium was rapidly escalating, partly because a cartel was operating
in the uranium industry.

The French, perhaps more than any other nation also were deeply
influenced in their energy policy by the arab oil embargo, and embarked 
on a policy of energy self sufficiency which led to their large nuclear
electricity generation program.

As we now know, nuclear capacity worldwide is not even close to the
projections, and the discovery of new, large, high-grade uranium deposits
in Saskatchewan has driven down uranium prices, so that currently fast
breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing are nowhere near as attractive as
they once seemed.

The French policy towards fast breeders was quite appropriate at the time
it was conceived, and it is rather unthoughtful to call it a fiasco using
tha benefit of hindsight.  If all industrialized countries had pushed nuclear
with the same vigour and general success as the French, their move towards
fast breeders would have been seen as far-sighted and correct.

It is true that the SuperPheonix has had some technical problems, but it is
not obvious that they could not be overcome in that reactor or successors,
if there were still the same drive and commitment to the concept. 


Don Cameron 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:36:09 GMT

In article <59098@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>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

I've been ignoring you, but what the heck...

The press release called for the elimination of industrial uses of 
chlorine *and its compounds*.

>technlogy on the net: without reading the report itself, attack Greenpeace

Whatever for?  It's from the same source as the press release.
Life's too short.

>on the grounds that table salt contains chlorine. This attack must rest on

Do you deny that table salt contains chlorine?

>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.

This is a prime example of what Peter Neumann, RISKS moderator,
referred to as "Shooting a straw herring in the mouth."  The press
release called for the elimination of industrial uses of chlorine
*and its compounds*.  Do you continue to deny that table salt
contains chlorine?

>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.

Wrong again. (But what's new?)

I attacked GreenPest for presuming to dictate and lecture to the
chemical industry on what compounds they may be permitted to use,
while they are so ignorant as to be unaware that table salt is a
chlorine compound.  Those who presume to dictate policy really
ought to have some conception of what they're blithering about.

I'll now go back to ignoring you.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
From: mikep@polaris.unm.edu (Mike Prine CIRT)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 19:25:22 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: polaris.unm.edu

	Why not use 120DC? Well I can think of several reasons not
mentioned yet. If you stay below 50volts DC you can avoid many national
electrical code hassles and probably do the work yourself rather than having
to hire someone who has a lisense but may know little about DC.
	High voltage DC is dangerous and expensive to use. You must buy special
breakers or fuses that are DC rated or risk them not working or having a very 
short life. For instance your standard AC wall switch if run on 120V DC dies 
after several months due to arcing. Also unless one has just come out you can't 
buy ground fault detection breakers for 110 DC but can be found for AC at just 
about any hardware store.
	For Photovoltaics, PV, it is also harder to find a site where 10
panels are always in the sun at the same time. With a 12volt system if one
cell in a panel is shaded you lose output from that panel. With 120volts
you must tie 10 panels in series so a loss of one cell due to shading takes
out the whole string, 10 times the impact. Thus you don't get as much 
power out of a 120volt setup. When the 120volt array is dead, a 12volt array
may still be getting power from one or two panels that are still catching the
sun.
	Finally there is the lack of expertise and equipment for high voltage
DC. With 12 or 24volts you can probably get what you need in a RV or Boat shop
or any of several mail order shops and magazines dedicated to renewable energy.
With 120VDC experts are hard to come by and most of the literature is from the
early days of Edison.
	In closing let me say that if you are considering an alternative energy
system, please take the time to do it right and safely. Any power processing
system is potentially dangerous and if too many people do it wrong the
government and it's lawyers will make it impossible for an average citizen to
do.

Michael Lee Prine	 IRC (Information Resource Center) consultant
Internet: mikep@hydra.unm.edu, Bitnet: MIKEP@UNMB, Phone: 1-505-277-8135
I get most of my electricity, at home, from the sun. It's a hobby, 
who cares if it's cost effective yet.
-- 
Michael Lee Prine	 IRC (Information Resource Center) consultant
Internet: mikep@hydra.unm.edu, Bitnet: MIKEP@UNMB, Phone: 1-505-277-8135
I get most of my electricity, at home, from the sun. It's a hobby, 
who cares if it's cost effective yet.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:24:26 GMT

: Ok, you can include the cost of Desert Storm, but we get to count
: the *profit* from Desert Storm. Hint, the Allies, including Japan
: and Germany, kicked in more money than the operation cost us. Saudi
: Arabia alone kicked in $38 billion in direct payments to the US
: Treasury.
: Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary

We are still paying.  Are they still paying us?  Furthermore Saudi
Arabia raised the cost of oil soon after the invasion.  The cost of
that increase was greater than the payments they made to our
government.  So we the ratepayers were the ones who really funded that
war.

And selling weapons to lots of countries is a false economy.  Notice
how many of *our* weapons are being used against us?

But part of the point is that some of the cost of *maintaining* our
rather well supplied military is needed to protect the oil supply.
Desert Storm was just a case of deploying a military that we were
already paying for.

The nuclear angle sounds presuasive, except that we were friendly with
Iraq right up until they invaded a major oil producer.  If we were
really concerned about their nuclear program (as we should have been)
we would have been concerned before they attacked.
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
      Not representing my employer.
    "'Moderation in all things' is for wimps."
Newsgroups: sci.energy,rec.bicycles.tech
From: david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Organization: OSF RI Grenoble
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:27:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.234831.23494@kestrel.edu>, king@reasoning.com (Dick King) writes:

|> I have seen two common ratings for 6V halogen bulbs that fit my particular
|> [Union] lamp: 2.4 W and 4 W.
|> 
|> The 2.4 W lamps that one buys in a bike shop have little sine waves scratched
|> into their bases,  On my 6V battery, 2.4W bulbs with tiny sine waves
|> scratched into their bases burn out after only a few hours.

Maybe it means they are rated at 6v a.c., which is about 4.2v d.c.  In this
case the bulb will be subjected to about 50% overcurrent.

David.
Newsgroups: sci.energy