HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:44:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.005630.20299@u.washington.edu> whit@milton.u.washington.edu (John Whitmore) writes:

>	I have noted that many people look first at the connotations,
>and last at the root meanings of words.  I think that's a mistake.
>The connotations, after all, are not always part of the intended
>message.

	From what I've seen,  an obsession with the "real meanings" of words
outside the common use is often a sign of mental illness.  I remember a
street person who insisted that his name (Robert) be pronounced "Roh-behrt"
instead of "Rob-ert".  He claimed that "Rob-ert" was the satanic pronunciation.

	Another batch of people that are fun to listen to (as soon as I hear
someone start saying about this,  I start giggling) are the people who try
to explain the difference between a "conservationist" (which they claim to
be) and a "preservationist" (what they are usually accusing somebody else
of being).  I thought that this originated in the late 80's-early 90's
anti-environmental PR campaign,  (Yes,  they are anti- people,  because the
only things they could be pro- for are like pro-.5%-of-the-population, or
pro-us,  pro-big-business,  or pro-welfare-rancher,  or pro-desertification,
or pro-deforestation or pro-republican :-)  but I later found a reference
to someone using this around the 70's,  so that particular chestnut has
been around for a long time.

	So what is the moral or the point?  It is impossible to separate a
word from it's popular connotations.  You might be able to do it in your
own head,  but you can't do it for other people.  And if you call anyone who
has any question about the safety of any point in the nuclear lifecycle a
"terrorist",  you're only going to get what you deserve.

	Then again,  I think Edward Abbey had something amusing to say
about this in ~The Monkey Wrench Gang~,  where someone describing the gang
says "These people are worse than terrorists,  they go after ~property~.
Can you beleive that?  Property"


-- 
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9683 sci.physics:11262 sci.energy:3478
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:17:53 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul20.222201.27582@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	Car payments for a $6000 car paid off over 5 years at 15%
>interest turn into $140 a month; interestingly, one pays about $2300
>in interest over this time. For a more expensive car or faster payoff,
>the payment/month goes up. With $100/month auto insurance, the cost is
>$240/month or $55/week for a small car, going upward for a bigger one.
>This is not counting gasoline; if one has a 30 mpg car and goes on a
>daily, relatively uncrowded commute of 5 mi, while paying
>$1.20/gallon, one pays $2/week for gas. But if one has to go 40 miles
>daily (the Livermore -- Berkeley distance), one has to pay $16/week
>for gas -- IF the route is relatively uncrowded. If one gets stuck in
>traffic jams on a regular basis, the cost will rise, due to gas wasted
>during slow travel and idling. In constrast, bus fare to LLNL from my
>home is $7.50 a week, and a regular commute (5 days a week) to
>Berkeley by bus and BART would cost nearly $30/week, and BART never
>gets stuck in traffic jams.

Wow! I knew there was a reason I don't live in California. $100 a month
for auto insurance! My bill for full coverage collision and liability
is $300 a year. And that's for a Camaro! The truck only costs $165. 
Current loan rates are also 8% over 36 months and the next 120 months 
are free. After that repair costs start to escalate. Gasoline has just 
nudged back over the $1 mark here after being at the $.90 level for the 
winter and spring. On the downside, the car only gets 20 MPG, but that's 
in typical Atlanta traffic hauling a trunk full of tools. Dragging those 
tool cases to a (nonexistant) nearby bus stop wouldn't be fun.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:19:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.053438.4518@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.221901.13387@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>Acutally the PG&E projection was until 2010.  I am not qualified to
>>criticize PG&E projections.  I am sure there are plenty of others who
>>are skeptical but I would think that a major utility would not gamble
>>on such a critical issue.  Doubts about the accuracy of their planning
>>needs to be addressed to them.  If they screwed up, I am sure we will
>>hear about it eventually.  Keep in mind that that is 75% of new peak demand
>>from efficiency, not 75% of supply.  See my recent post about efficiency
>>My recent post about efficiency will be interesting to skeptics.
>
>I see.  Sounds like they're planning to have business operate from 9 to 5 (pm
>to am, that is).  Peak load management is mostly a matter of shifting
>activities from the peak period to the off-peak period. Now, what're their
>figures on baseload capacity?  That IS what coal and nuclear power plants are
>used for, you know.  Peaking plants tend to be combustion turbines.

Sounds like this, seems like that.  Do you have anything to offer that is
based of fact rather than your assumptions?  You have been very prolific
in offering criticisms with no substance this morning and I have better
things to do.  When you offer some substantiated criticisms based on
some research with references, I will respond.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: dietz@mpi-sb.mpg.de (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re
Date: 22 Jul 92 07:36:37 GMT
Reply-To: dietz@mpi-sb.mpg.de
Organization: Max-Planck Institut fuer Informatik

In article 2278@sugra.uucp, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:

>In the research I have done on the toxicity of nuclear waste, it seems that
>the waste is less toxic than the ore it comes from in between 300 and 1200
>years, depending on how you measure toxicity (its a lot more complicated than
>you would think).  Therefore, I've often said to some of my environmentalist
>friends that nuclear power is really cleaning up the planet on a long
>term basis :-).


You often see this statistic, but it is pretty misleading.

First, it is only talking about the *fission products*.  The long term
activity from spent fuel is primarily actinides, not fission products.
Unless those are removed and recycled back into fuel, the spent fuel
remains more toxic than the ore from which it was derived for somewhere
around 100,000 years.

Second, the toxicity in the ore is not removed!  Most of this toxicity
is from the decay products of U-238.  Radium, for example.  This radium
stays behind in the mine tailings -- or leaches out.  Moreover, the U-238
that didn't end up in the fuel rods (and most of the U-238 that did) isn't
consumed, and will go right on decaying, making more radium, after it is
disposed of.

Now, if you are talking about a breeder reactor, the second point has less
force, as much less uranium need be mined per unit of power.  But then you
make 50-100 times as much fission products per unit uranium mined.  That will
push back the time for fission products to decay to below ore toxicity.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
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: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:50:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.150707.1246@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>The efficiency being used by SCEdison is available now and is cost effective.
>Wind is cost effective now. Solar thermal is cost effective now, especially
>when after-consumption costs are factored in.  Renewables will need to use
>the grid to distribute power and I don't know what capacity the grid has
>but efficiency has no such limitations.

     Wind is cost-effective at the Altamont pass.  Solar thermal is marginally
     cost-effective in the southwest deserts.  As far as the grid is concerned,
     you don't want to produce power on the west coast to ship to the east.
     Your cost-efficiency would nosedive.

     Neither method is likely cost-effective in Virginia for the 
     production of large amounts of power.  And the leaf-blowers necessary
     for the solar collectors would raise a terrible racket ...

                                  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:10248 sci.physics:11946 sci.energy:3774
From: yergeau@cornu.phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:04:27 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <1992Jul28.223415.3231@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>We obviously can only go so far with efficiency but it appears to be
>able to go a long way over the next decade or two.  This would
>provide more time to evaluate the progress of renewables, which have
>been progressing faster than technical experts expected, and also to
>evaluate and finalize plans for the new generation of so-called
>"inherently safe" nuclear plants.  As far as I know, these designs
>are not ready for construction now...

One such design is not only ready for construction, but in actual
operation in many places in the world.  It's the CANDU, which uses
heavy water as both the coolant and the moderator.  This gives it two
nice advantages:

1) It uses natural uranium, which allows one to do away with
   somewhat polluting and politically touchy enrichment plants.

2) It is "inherently safe" in the sense that accidental loss of coolant
   automatically results in the reactor stopping through the loss of
   the moderator.

This is my understanding of the expression "inherently safe": you are
_passively_ protected against a runaway reactor by the fact that
coolant and moderator are one and the same fluid; you cannot lose one
without losing the other, and if that happens, the chain reaction stops
automatically.  This is not the same as a "completely safe" reactor,
but the a completely safe power plant, nuclear or otherwise, does not
exist and will never exist.  That should not, however, stop one from
improving the CANDU or other designs to get closer to this ideal.

> ...so it seems that nuclear proponents
>would also benefit from a little more time so as to avoid building
>older designs if the newer ones are almost ready and are anywhere
>near as good as claimed.

If you are going to build coal burners, better buy a CANDU right now.
If conservation and efficiency will do, waiting might be a good thing,
but one should carefully weigh the consequences (economic and
environmental) of each option.

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  Quand le doigt montre la lune,
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  l'imbecile regarde le doigt.
Departement de Physique                  |               -proverbe chinois
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
From: makrisna@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Krishna Achuta Rao)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Organization: Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-10123]: convex1.tcs.tulane.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:37:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.154529.2614@midway.uchicago.edu> rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>As for Younger-Dryas, I pose the question:  What would have happened
>if this was initiated in an atmosphere already "primed" by 
>anthropogenic warming?  Would the event have been aborted ("atmosphere
>warm enough already, don't need a younger-dryas just now.") or
>would the YD warming be added in addition to the anthropogenic
>warming.  Do we know enough about climate to rule out the
>second possibility?
      The Younger Dryas was a cold period during the last deglaciation (a 
return to near glacial conditions) and not a warming..... wasn't it?
krishna

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Krishna Achuta Rao                         +                               +
+ Tenured Graduate Student                   +   Tulane University           +
+ Department of Mechanical Engineering.      +   The big Easy. LousyAnna.    +
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:30:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.160604.5987@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>     Q:  Why is this not done?
>
>     A:  It is not economical, and I think that most people would object
>         to having 5 windmills in their front yards.

Dale, why don't you try reading the article before you dismiss it out
of hand?

>     Nuclear plants *are* needed, right now.

Dale, why don't you try reading that nice little Scientific American
special issue on energy and try to refute the estimates in it, instead
of asserting that you know all the answers?

>     I think what you have failed to realize is that capacity *will*
>     increase with economic growth (if the environmentalists allow
>     us any).

Dale, why don't you try reading that nice little Scientific American
special issue on energy and try to refute the estimates in it, instead
of asserting that you know all the answers?

Followups to alt.flame, because this thread has zero information
content.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10049 sci.energy:3688 sci.physics:11695
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:09:58 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft) writes:

>Most of the radiation damage (to environment and/or humans) is due
>to military plants and military projects.  In USA, that is.

>The problems w/ civilan power plants include shoddy workmanship and
>a total failure to include the projected cost of shutdown in the
>original bid.

No.  Shoddy workmanship is so rare that you actually hear about each
case on the news.  Think about that for a moment.  Think about why
you rarely hear about shoddy workmanship in cars, houses and so on
in the news.  The cost of decomissioning is collected every day
as a percentage of revenue generated.

>There's a nuke plant in MA which is old and creaky; the estimated cost
>to shutdown, dismantle, etc. is something like 20X the fab cost. This
>seemed crazy to me-- it would be cheaper to keep it offline and
>permanently manned, guarded, etc.  So it goes.

Turn the numbers into constant dollars and it is much less crazy.
Then remember that when that plant was built, the econazis did not
yet exist.  I'm convinced that "econazius americanus" is came from a 
genetic mutation caused by simultaneously too much Jimmi Hendrix, 
bad acid, breathing draft card smoke and having sex in the 
back of a clapped out MicroBus.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: spears@bobcat.lmc.edu (Gene Spears)
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Organization: Lees-McRae College, Banner Elk, NC
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:33:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.170734.28363@colorado.edu> men@bjerknes.colorado.edu (Matthew Newman) writes:

>Ok, I know I'm going to regret entering this pointless discussion in
>even the smallest way, but--

.....well, just so that you won't be disappointed.....


>From the human standpoint, all that really matters is how much CO2
>has risen in the last century or so, and how much (and how fast) it
>will rise in the coming years.  Any 'natural' level is irrelevant
>(except insofar as it might indicate processes that act to maintain
>such a level), because our only concern is what will happen to our
>current civilization.  Whether anthropogenic global warming is the 
>fastest change the world has ever seen doesn't matter; only whether
>it is a change that is too fast for *us* to adjust to without 
>significant disruption.  

(deletions)

From THIS human's standpoint, I'm not too worried about whether we can 
adjust to the changed climate.  Humans are remarkably adaptable and very 
good at manipulating their environment.  Especially those human populations 
that can afford air conditioning.  What does worry me is how many of our 
fellow biota can make the necessary adjustments.


>This is also true from a global standpoint--can other life adjust to
>such a change, or will we find that our civilization's survival is
>threatened by the loss of too many species.

How about those (probably) millions of species that really won't affect our 
survival one way or another?   Do we kiss them off?  IMHO, far too many 
biologists and ecologists have been trapped into economic arguments to 
justify species protection.  There's a hell of a lot of ecological 
redundancy if you reduce an ecosystem to its functional attributes.  Far 
more honest if we acknowledge that we're making a value judgement; 
those plants and animals are valuable because most people VALUE them, 
(several posters in sci.environmental excepted) not for what they might do 
for us.   

>Sure, we can take the ultra long view and say that other climate
>change has occurred before in Earth's history; there will always
>be species that can take advantage of the new environment, and other
>species that will lose out.  This does not seem particularly useful,
>however, given the long time it takes for new species to evolve.  And
>we hardly have to fear that humanity is going to be wiped out.  But
>this doesn't strike me as much comfort.

Me either.

Gene Spears
spears@bobcat.lmc.edu


Xref: sparky sci.environment:10220 sci.physics:11891 sci.energy:3762
From: yergeau@cornu.phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:00:23 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <2gmmn3c@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Francis sez:
 ^^^^^^^

That's Francois, if you please.

>>In article <0!lm8dl@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>> I'm convinced that "econazius americanus" is came from a 
>>> genetic mutation caused by simultaneously too much Jimmi Hendrix, 
>>> bad acid, breathing draft card smoke and having sex in the 
>>> back of a clapped out MicroBus.
>
>>Where one shows very clearly that he knows what he's talking about.  Or
>>was that a joke?  Given the tone of the rest of the article, a couple
>>of smileys would have been useful.
>
>Unfortunately that genetic mutation did not result in the inability of
>said victims to operate a keyboard.  

Hmmm, let's see.  The above amounts to labeling me an "econazius
americanus", right?  Since I am rather pro-nuclear, pro-development and
quite wary of the too  numerous radicals in the environment movement, I
declare this statement merely laughable and dismiss it as the probable
result of a moment of anger.  Very clearly, John did not read the next
paragraph in my post, which is understandable since I had forgotten to
format it.

>> [ <Return>-less paragraph deleted ]
>
>I see the mutation DID remove the ability to use the <Return> key.  

Cheap shot!  Who said "...and the Children play" lately?

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  Quand le doigt montre la lune,
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  l'imbecile regarde le doigt.
Departement de Physique                  |               -proverbe chinois
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9964 sci.energy:3653
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Mass transit and politics (was Re: Is car pooling for real?)
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:08:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <+1cmmlm@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>All this service costs $5 a day short term before I figure in my always
>present discount coupons.  A round trip Marta ride cost $2.50.  I have
>to drag my luggage across a long parking lot, fumble it through a 
>toll gate, down an escalator (or wait for the elevator) and finally
>stand around for up to 20 minutes waiting for the train.  For my typically
>overnight trips, I think the extra $2.50 is well worth it to avoid
>Marta.  I can generally leave 45 minutes later from my office when I
>use the off-site parking than when I ride MARTA.  Not worth it.

Note also that,for working folks, time IS money.  I use a general rule
of thumb of $1/minute for staff cost (fully burdened rate).  It is close
to the typical average for technical folks.  The 45 minutes is $45 of
value in the office.  $45 of waste in the parkinglot/train station...
An no, I don't think the time on the train has work value.  I've never
been able to get anything of significance done on a plane or train.
(Though the PowerBook may change that ... I'll have to see on my next
trip to Usenix ...)

Even for people not presently 'at work',their time is money.  Figure
$.10/minute.  That is still $4.50 of value.  Even on my own time and
money, using the long term parking lots with the high availablity Jitney
bussses wins.  Even if valued at the same rate MacDonalds pays cooks ...
($5xx or so I think.  A smidge above minimum wage.)

And the Jitney drops me off at MY airline counter ...

Most of the time, though, I just have my wife chauffer me...  She wants
to say goodby anyway...  THE best transit is, oddly enough, a private
car driving BOTH to AND from the airport TWICE!  Direct door to door 
service with minimal time and dollar costs.  When we get a cellular 
phone in the car (I have a portable one I can carry with me provided by
my employer) we will even be able to coordinate the 'pickup' better to 
eliminate the 'circle till you see me' delays ...
-- 

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.