HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:18:24 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Jul26142710@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul26.072736.12153@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>
>
>   But, even though far more coal plants are being built than nuclear
>   plants, the objection is predominantly against nuclear.
>
>   As long as coal plants are being built, there is a strong case
>   for nuclear. When 'efficiency and renewables' start closing
>   down coal plants, the case for nuclear will dwindle.
>
>There is a strong argument that in fact large old coal plants
>should be phased out and replaced with new (nuclear) plants.
>Between concern over greenhouse affects and sulphate emissions,
>even new coal plants could argued to be undesireable, I'd say
>any coal plant over 20 years old is a good candidate for shutdown.
>
Dozens of old coal plants will be shut down due to age in the next
decade or two.  Their capacity must be dealt with before shutting
down other plants.  Renewable energy plants can be constructed in
extremely short times; retrieved capacity from efficiency is
available is a short time span, also.  Nuclear plants take ten years
to build.  The new "inherently safe" nuclear plants are still under
study.  As a practical matter, efficiency and renewables are the most
pragmatic approach.
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	          *
>* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	          *
>*  Ain't you heard of the the starving millions?     			  *
>*  Ain't you heard of contraception?  "Too much too young" Specials, 1979 * 
>
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10331 sci.electronics:13652 rec.autos.tech:10421
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.electronics,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Letters to the Editor:  Blazing Ta
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:22:38 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>In sci.environment, I commented that ignition coils generate the
>spark on the inward-going sweep of the magnetic field, because that
>produces a bigger spark than using the outward-going stroke of
>the magnetic field.  Somebody disagreed with me

You are correct and the other fellow is wrong.  He might have a different
way of doing it and it may work, but what you said is true in any event.

An ignition coil, and in fact, any transformer winding has its own built
in inductance which determines the current flow versus voltage level applied
during transients (going from off to on and on to off.)

Usually you have a fixed voltage (12 volts) and a fixed inductance (the
ignition coil.)  All you can change is the load resistance.  When it is
hooked to the battery, the series resistance is probably a few tenths of
ohms or less.  The charge time constant is T=L/R.   As you can see, making
the resistance bigger makes the time constant smaller.  (A time constant
is the time it takes for the current to change 63%.)  However, in the
charging mode you want to store a lot of energy in the magnetic fields
around the ignition coil, so you want a lot of current to flow -- which
would be defeated by having a high resistance.  So you charge with a low
resistance and give the coil plenty of time to reach max current (at least
5 time constants.)

Once you let the current reach its max value, you can change the load
resistance by opening the "points."  Now, suddenly, the R shoots up to
hundreds of megaohms.  The time constant becomes very very small.  There
is no current flowing and therefore nothing to hold the energy stored
in the magnetic fields.  The collapsing feilds start inducing voltage in
the coils of the inductor.  At first nothing happens because even at raised
voltage, there is nowhere for the current to go.  But eventually the voltage
reaches the point where it breaks down the insulative properties of air,
at approx 20,000 volts per inch.  Once the air breaks down, the R value
again drops to a few ohms and the time constant goes back up -- but if there
is sufficient current flow, the heat maintains the breakdown ionization of
the air and it no longer needs high voltage to maintain the spark.

As I say, there are other ways to do things, but this is the way many
generations of automobiles have been run.

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Kill file tuning (was Re: What is Market Efficiency....)
Summary: see no evil, hear ... well, you get the picture
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:42:59 GMT

In article <70628@apple.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.030006.5762@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul29.023623.20043@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>
>>>I give up.  Anyone know how to put this guy in a kill file?  
>>>I've never resorted to a kill file yet, but I'm willing to learn...
>>
>>     Yes.  /dale bass/aK.
>

     [stuff deleted]

>I've also put in 
>
>/crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU/h:j
>
>just to be on the safe side ...

     You might also wish to include crb7q@helga.acc.virginia.edu
     and anywhere else I choose to post from.  I think that it would 
     be much 'safer' just to include /crb7q/h as that will get anything
     that I post while at UVa.  I was trying to help you out by including
     a common feature of *all* my postings, crb7q will only get
     most of them.  Of course, you cannot see this
     so it is almost a moot point, but I'm still waiting on the authoritative
     reference on 'market efficiency', especially as it relates to 
     consumer markets and energy distribution.

     I see how the eyes are done.  I wonder how one does the hands over 
     the ears and mouth at the same time?

                                   dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars vs. Bikes (Was: Why electric cars?) and carpooling stuff.
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:49:39 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <156treINNqb9@agate.berkeley.edu>, utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes:

>If you argue that the states have no power to restrict and licence certain
>activities, where will you stop?

There are those of us that don't think you should, except in response to
violations of other people's rights.  But that leads to Libertarianism.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:31:32 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul27.164227.21143@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>I was only justifying the agreeable quality of life in cities that depend
>on transit; I don't recall recommending conversion of any city. On the
>other hand I believe you were suggesting the 'evolution' of cities toward
>your American ideal. 

Ok, fair enough. I wouldn't want to strip NYC of it's subways. But on
the other hand, I don't want to have Atlanta turned into a poor copy
of NY.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:34:38 GMT

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

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:06:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.145544.14531@kth.se> tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Jul24150518@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
:
:|: I spent Fall 1991 at Harvard living in Brookline.  For a long time,
:|: Harvard bureaucrats wouldn't let me buy $4 per day parking stickers
:|: for a convenient lot.  For most of this time I took a bus.  Not
:|: bad as buses go.  I had to walk to Cleveland Circle from where I
:|: lived and walk from Harvard Square to the Aiken Center.  The
:|: alternative was commercial parking at $12 per day which wasn't
:|: always available or parking in Somerville which wasn't always
:|: available.  When Harvard relented and sold me the parking stickers,
:|: I switched entirely to driving.
:|: 
:|: --
:|: John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
:|: *
:|: He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
:|: 

:Interesting, the free market values the parking at $12 while Harvard
:charges $4 per day. Seems to me like they are subsidising the parking
:by 67%. Why don't I hear any cries of outrage that this is wrong? 
:Could it be that YOU profit from this subsidy?

	That's _another_ thing I should have included in my BART-car
comparisons for the Bay Area. Parking costs. I've read that in San
Francisco, it is often $20/day. Compare a daily commute fare for BART
of $4.50 from the East Bay, which might rise to $8 or so if BART was
unsubsidized. BART parking, and parking at most other Bay Area
park-and-ride lots is free (the only exception I know of is BART's
Lake Merritt station); since land is a lot cheaper in outlying areas,
the effective parking subsidy for many park-and-ride lots is probably
less than the parking fees mentioned here.

	To recap some earlier estimates, I worked out that if one goes
by car on a typical BART trip, one pays about $2.40 for gasoline at
current prices (a 30-mi round trip in a 30-mpg car where one pays
$1.20/gallon of gas). And this estimate assumes a high-mpg car with no
traffic jams. If one pays off a $12,000 car assuming one pays no
interest over 5 years, or else pays off an $8000 car at 15% interest
over that time one pays the equivalent of $9/working day. If one pays
$1000 to $2000 a year on car insurance, one pays $4 to $8 / working
day.

	So public transit can actually be _economical_, despite its
reputation for depending on subsidies.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ssave@ole.cdac.com (Shailendra Save)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: Cars Transit Cities
Organization: CDAC, WA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:48:07 GMT

In article <ajpbart.711966671@adam.adelaide.edu.au> ajpbart@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Barter) writes:
>Much of the discussion about car-pooling, transit, highways etc. seems
>to be missing an important dimension. Choices by both planners and
>individuals about transport have a very large long-term impact upon
>the future shape of a city. This is easy to understand - transport
>possibilities influence private decisions on where to live and where
>to set up business.  There is an intimate connection between land-use
>in cities and the transport systems which the cities have gone in for.
>
>

	 Good. Thought provoking.

-S
ssave@ole.cdac.com

>Paul Barter
>University of Adelaide,
>South Australia.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
From: jackal@keps.kodak.com (Phil Hammar)
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Organization: Kodak Electronic Printing Systems
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:07:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.155151.3676@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>Do the figures of cost of highways include the cost of highway patrol, and of
>a fair share of the judicial system?
>

	As to the Judicial System, here in Massachusetts, an evening
news magazine reported that the Court system in this state is a profit
center for the government because of the number of fines it collects
from traffic violations and such.

			Phil


-- 
			Philip Hammar
	Sys. Admin. for CIPG of KEPS, a wholly owned subsidiary of E. KODAK Co.
UUCP: ...!{harvard!ima,uunet!atexnet}!munsell!jackal 	Phone: (508)670-6650
Internet: jackal@keps.kodak.com
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10307 sci.physics:12051
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:00:55 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute

In article <1992Jul29.224026.6404@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	Greg Finn, how much choice do you have over spending on
>highways?

	I did without a car from 1969-1979 both in Boston and LA when
I was in my twenties.  While working in the mid 70's I walked, used a
taxi for work or mooched rides which I repayed by fronting for lunches
and so on.  I rarely used the MTA.  It didn't go anywhere near where I
worked.  I had money for a car.  I had a license.  I looked at my
likely expenses, at the benefits, and decided to bank the difference.
That changed when I took a job 10 miles from where I was living in
'79.  Are you suitably embarassed now?  Why did you even ask such a
question?
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: More Global Warming
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:47:39 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa

In article <BrsG3D.37H@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>What are the "full expenses" that we are suffering under today?  I hear
>a lot of claims that doomsday is around the corner, but everywhere I look
>I see thetremendous improvements brought about through the industrial
>revolution, and none of the "hazards" of it.  Where are the dead bodies?

In the ground? :-)

Do large numbers of people have to die for you to see a problem?  
Maybe you meant to say "What exactly are the hazards?"

Ken
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:56:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.060439.5135@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.220122.13101@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

>>Obviously we are not talking about wishful thinking, but methods that
>>are tried and proven successsful in one of the largest urban areas in
>>the U.S.
>
>No, we're talking about confusing total demand with peak demand.  See John
>McCarthy's sig, and add to it "And those who don't pay attention to what the
>numbers they're using for their arithmetic mean are no better off."
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A significant issue here has been the need to build new power plants.  Peak
demand is the crucial factor for this.  The premise in my thread with C.R. Bass
was that neither coal nor nuclear power plant construction is needed in the
near future due to efficiency and renewables.  Peak demand is central to
this debate.  Please show where I have been confusing peak with base.
Efficiency deals with both peak and base, but the peak demand component
is of most interest to utilities.

The methods described in the article
and referred to with the "These methods" in the paragraph I quoted were
involved with utilities encouraging and subsidizing the replacement of
inefficient technology, so both peak and base demand was lowered.

For you to accuse me of confusing the issue while you jump to
conclusions about an article which you obviously haven't read is at
best disengenuous.  If you don't know what you are talking about and
don't have the time to read the article, you could ask what their
DSM methods are.

>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.

Of course, you aren't talking about VAX/VMS here, so I guess you aren't
responsible.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:21:09 GMT

>In article <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>>
>>	If nuclear power advocates would just give up their luddite-like
>>apprehension towards sustainable technologies,  then we might actually
>>start developing a sane energy technology for this country and the world.
>
When you ecoterrorists (people who oppose what we have without offering
viable alternatives) tell us how to run an aluminum smelter off of photo-
voltaics, or wind generators.

As for the economics of going solar, even if it will last forever, the bank
will want it to pay back the loan in five years.

The only reason Ontario Hydro advocates nukes, instead of wind and sun, is
that here in Ontario, we do not have worthwhile ammounts of either.  What we
do have is excess heat from industrial processes whic is now being harnessed
for electrical power THAT is proper environmentalism -- telling us what is
better, and doable, not just screaming "BAD! BAD! BAD!" at things they do
not seem to fully understand.

A few weeks ago, a Greenpeace representative said that there was no difference
between the designs of the Chernobyl reactors, the Three mile Island reactors,
and CANDU reactors.  My faith in my fellow man sighs at this level of ignorance
my cynicism tells me that it might have been a deliberate misrepresentation 
of the facts.  Either perception leads one to the conclusion that Greenpeace,
at least, perhaps many other groups, are a pack of Luddites.

A luddite engineer is a contradiction in terms, much like a black clansman.


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Followup-To: sci.environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul25121617@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <50892@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:59:26

In article <50892@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   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'm pleased to see that you are not only willing to make wild accusations
   without any evidence, but you are willing to repeat them even after being
   corrected. If you recall, last time you raised this issue, I posted an
   excerpt from a medical journal on "microwave burns", apparently a common
   problem in young children who get scalded by food or milk heated in a
   microwave oven. Your response was that you did not have time to actually
   look the article up in the library. Now, here you are again, with the
   same canard. It's a nice shtik, but it's at variance with the facts.

   >Well he's a lawyer, and to a lawyer, science is just something from
   >which you select a few facts that will help your cause.

   Considering the state of scientific rigor and ethics in computer "science",
   I believe a little more discretion might be indicated here.

   yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

What Nader was raising alarms about was not the ordinary accident of a
child being scalded by hot food, which presumably is possible, no
matter how the food is heated, but rather being injured by the
microwaves.  However, it seems to me that the probability of this kind
of accident is reduced for microwave ovens, because there isn't the
possibility of the child toppling the pot on himself by pulling on the
handle while it is heating.  Nor is microwave cooking subject to
accidents associated with open flames or with the fact that an
electric burner is hot long after it has been turned off.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:10133 sci.geo.meteorology:2594 sci.skeptic:13281