HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Summary: Hey what?
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:24:05 GMT
Followup-To: sci.energy
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1992Nov17.161857.24416@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:

> As with the current thread on Greenpeace's amnesia on Saddam's environmental
>catastrophies, oh I forgot it was the US's fault because we were bombing
>him at the time. I'd like to show some other environmental disasters that
>Greenpeace seems to have forgotten.
>
> Yellow Rain usage in Afghanistan and SE Asia.

I was reading a biology paper once on the alledged use of 'Yellow Rain'.
It turns out to be bee spit not biological or chemical weaponry. Another
attrocity story from the dark side of the Cold War.

> Daniel Ortega using chemical agents on Sandinista farms and "suspected" farms.

Any evidence? It seems just to be stupid to spray chemicals on people you
can shoot.


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  At dawn with staff in hand I climbed the crags,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  At dusk I made my camp amoung the mountains.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Only a few peaks rise as high as this house,
One China One Korea One Eire32  Facing the crags, it overlooks winding streams.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Zika)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Chernobyl's Number Three Reactor Restarts
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 04:28:28 GMT

In article <Greenpeace.19Nov1992.1648@naughty-peahen> Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>
>CHERNOBYL'S NUMBER THREE REACTOR RESTARTS 
>  
>LONDON October 16, 1992 (GP) Greenpeace has received information 
>today that the third reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant 
>is starting up today. 
>   
>The Chernobyl power station is scheduled to be closed at the end of 
>1993, however, the Ukrainian authorities say they need the  
>remaining units over the winter months. 

No debate that the RBMK design is poor at best...

Interesting question:  Which is preferred: The threat of another
Chernobyl style nuclear disaster, or the threat of violent social
upheaval in the Ukraine this winter if there is no heat (to go
along with the lack of food, work, etc., etc.)

-- 
                                     |
Michael Zika (zika@ecn.purdue.edu)   |    Hey don't ask me "why?",
Purdue University                    |    I'm still working on "how?" ! 
School of Nuclear Engineering        |
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: opening of the first
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:33:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Nov15.173301.3113
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <L27SBYL6@cc.swarthmore.edu> dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen) writes:
>dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>> I would dispute your claim.  Triple paned glass windows are really
>> just conservation -- as long as you have a window, you want to make
>> the losses through it be low.  If anything, this *reduces* solar
>> heating, as the triple pane windows are somewhat less transparent that
>> double pane.
>
>I disagree.  Glass has a high transmission coefficient in the frequency
>range of the visible spectrum and the range of the spectrum at which the
>most enrgy is available in solar radiation.


Um, this agrees with what I said!  Triple paned windows reduce losses.
They don't increase the transmission of visible light.  So, if you
replace the conventional windows in a house with triple paned windows,
while keeping the area and positions of the windows constant, you are
simultaneously reducing insolation and heat losses.  I.e., you are
sacrificing solar input for the purpose of conservation.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky sci.energy:5575 sci.environment:12862 talk.environment:4662
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Date: 19 Nov 1992 14:44:24 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 <1992Nov18.153706.7862@nmt.edu>, houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
=	The low-tech designs that I've seen for solar water desalination
=mostly use a tent-like structure made out of polyethylene sheet (which is a
=really good material if you want to play with solar thermal technology on the
=cheap.  My father built a solar "greenhouse" addition to the house one year
=using wood and poly sheet that he had laying around,  and with the addition
=of a fan,  it could keep most of the house at 80 centigrade during the day.)

Wow!  That's 176F.  Where do you live, Death Valley?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Demand
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:37:29 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 <28458@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:
>To alter the above question slightly, What would be the effect of
>everybody in Florida taking a Siesta in the middle of the afternoon and then
>working until slightly later in the evening, on energy demand.
>
>On the plus side there would be less need for airconditioning in the
>evening.

Spoken like someone who's never spent an evening in Florida in the summer!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.energy
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:36:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.060352.20615@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Ah, but unlike photovoltaic cells, or solar thermal collectors,
>it costs us nothing, or nearly nothing to deploy organic solar
>collectors. Converting that energy to readily usable combustibles
>also costs us nothing. Our only cost is that of recovery, and that's
>only a fraction of the cost of photovoltaics.

I grew up on a farm and always thought it took lots of water (a scarce
resource in the West), fertilizer, land, and labor to grow plants.
The land, in particular, is subject to depletion when used intensively.
This kind of thing is what makes gasohol from corn uneconomical.

Did my pa taught me wrong?

-- 
Will Intel be the only X86 chip maker without a 586?
From: uspugwash@igc.apc.org (Student Pugwash USA)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: POINTER: Creating a Secure 21st Ce
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:56:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466300106:000:187
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!uspugwash    Nov 17 13:56:00 1992


POINTER -- For more information on upcoming 
1992 Student Pugwash USA National Chapter 
Conference, Creating a Secure 21st Century:
Global Security in a Changing World see
youth.activism
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:52:25 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 <51522@seismo.CSS.GOV>, stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
=Not short-sighted, I am very much against coal use, but for environmental
=reasons, not energy production.  The point is that it is a readily accessible
=and very inexpensive (in terms of how much useful energy must be expended
=to recover it) to use.  And we get a large amount of the energy it contains
=as useful energy.  Supply is a pointless argument - if there is an energy
=source and we plan to use all of it at some point, why do we care if it
=is used first instead of a competing resource?  Are you arguing that
=someone in the future wants to use it for energy?  But who cares - if we
=have alternate sources now, they will have the same alternatives then.

True.  But if we don't use alternatives now, then some usable energy will be
forever wasted.  Sunlight that hits a roof, warms it and the air above it, and
does nothing else is wasted, when it could've been used in lieu of fossil fuel
to, e.g., heat water for the home under the roof, or provide electricity,
eventually giving up as much heat as it would have anyway.  Solar energy is a
classic case of "use it or lose it."

=If our energy use can not be altered, then it does not matter which
=energy source we use to satisfy our needs now.  Of course, I favor
=improvements in energy efficiency and conservation where appropriate, but
=there is a minimum amount of energy we require now, and it doesn't matter
=where it comes from.

Yes, it does.  If we can get use out of solar energy NOW, that leaves a bit
more fossil fuel for future applications that can't be easily handled by solar
energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.energy
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 07:16:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.215307.11973@bsu-ucs>, 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
|> 
|>  
|> [....]
|> > It will get off from a cold start in thirty seconds.
|> 
|> But is that just too long?  With an IC, it's a fraction of that.
|> What can make from quiker startup?  How about an electric heating element?  
|> Good insulation? Very low water volume might me the key.  Wouldn't a low-volume,
|> high-temperature, high-pressure system (with less water to boil) 
|> start up faster?
|> [....]

Could always run off electric motor/battery for 1st 30 secs

Larry Edwards

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:19:15 GMT

stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> In article <1849@spam.ua.oz>, jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov17.161857.24416@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
>>> him at the time. I'd like to show some other environmental disasters that
>>> Greenpeace seems to have forgotten.
>>>    Yellow Rain usage in Afghanistan and SE Asia.

> The whole point is that a lot of environmental extremists went to
> great lengths to exonerate communist states in the use of yellow
> rain, by coming up with the bee shit theory.
Accusations such as Yellow Rain must not be done lightly, especially
against a foreign country.  It is only reasonable and prudent to
carefully investigate alternative explanations.

Also consider what it means to be an extremist.  All the word really
means is that your opinion is not close to the middle of the road at
the time.  I consider your opinions also extreme, but in the other
direction.  The environmental middle of the road has shifted a great
deal in the last 30 years.  Back then you might be considered in the
middle.  Not any more.  This is not really a criticism.  Its just a
perspective.  For example many people will agree that extremism in the
defense of liberty is not a vice.  But environmentalism may not be
such a clear case.

>  However, the theory was shot down in flames when the former soviet
> union released files that showed that they did, in fact, use yellow
> rain in the very circumstances attributed to bee shit.  Few serious
> scientists ever completely accepted the bee shit argument due to the
> huge volumes of bee shit required in very short amounts of time.
Few serious scientists ever completely accepted the Yellow Rain theory
either.  The proof just wasn't strong enough back then.

> So the bee shit theory is the atrocity cover story generated by the
> dark side of the cold war.
Agreed.

> It turns out that now that the cold war has been won, files have
> been released by the former soviet union that support virtually
> every official accusation of atrocity by the US and agree in
> incredible detail.
I don't have access to these files.  Do you?

> BTW - This is way off the subject of energy.
>	Richard Stead
True.  Frankly I don't remember just who started this with comments
about Greenpeace.
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
      Not representing my employer.
    The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to
    pursue happiness.  You have to catch it yourself. --- Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: pkeller@engin.umich.edu (Paul Michael Keller)
Subject: Re: Plutonium
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 09:26:46 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In <1992Nov13.071121.9834@engage.pko.dec.com> 
moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com (Mike) writes:

>Can anyone knowledgable make an educated guess as to the isotopic composition
>of the plutonium being sent to Japan?  As in how much Pu-239 (the stuff good
>for bombs), how much Pu-240 (which makes bombs 'fizzle' as discussed several
>times in this group), how much of anything else relevant?

Oldekop, et al [1] give the following for 'typical' plutonium recycled from
light water reactors:

             Pu-239: 57%
             Pu-240: 27%
             Pu-241:  9%
             Pu-242:  6%

The nuclear properties of Pu-241 are similar to those of Pu-239 in that both
will sustain a chain reaction.  Pu-241, however, has a relatively short 
half-life of about 14 years.  The nuclear properties of of Pu-242 are similar 
to those of Pu-240 in that both are so-called 'threshold fissionable' isotopes,
that is, they are fissionable by high energy neutrons only, and will not sustain
a chain reaction.  I was unable to find anything on the spontaneous fission rate
for Pu-242.  The high spontaneous fission rate of Pu-240 is the property which
is troublesome in nuclear weapons.

Bear in mind that plutonium isotopics can vary by several percentage points,
depending on the irradiation times and fuel management schemes.  The age of the
plutonium will also make a difference due to the relatively short half-life of
Pu-241.  By contrast, according to [2], the weapons grade plutonium employed
by the US has a Pu-239 content of at least 90%.

References:

1.  Nuclear Technology, Vol 59, p. 212(1982).

2.  Thomas B. Cochran, 'Nuclear Weapons Databook,' Cambridge Mass.,
    Balllinger Pub. Co. (1984).

Paul Keller
pkeller@engin.umich.edu
Graduate Student, Nuclear Engineering
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:27:20 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Nov14.185409.17561@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
 

|> Actually, all the approaches listed, with the exception of geothermal,
|> *are* solar energy. And *all* have better efficiency than *direct* solar.
|> However, the *most* efficient collectors of solar energy remain *plants*.
|> Burning plants, freshly dead, or concentrated under tons of rocks for
|> eons, is still the most efficient use of solar energy. And there is very
|> little capital cost involved with setting up the "plants."  :-)
|> 
 
I wonder what you mean by efficient.  If one considers the
solar energy hitting a leaf, photosynthesis converting that energy,
the plant forming cellulose from that energy, that cellulose 
being collected by humans, then burned to produce heat, that heat
converted to work that is then converted to electricity as
the system, do you really claim that this is more efficient
than even the worst photovoltaic cell?  If one added the
additional processes involved in converting the plant to
fossil fuel then the "efficiency" would be even worse.

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 23 Nov 1992 10:57:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   There was a recent article in the New Scientist that stated
 a world survey shows at least 50 nuclear warheads and 11
 nuclear reactors contributed by various countries, currently
 lying at the bottom of the oceans.

 Hope this is not indicative of the standards of nuclear
 disposal in the future.

 I am interested in solar energy harnessing by arrays of
 focussing mirrors, several systems are already operating
 here, in Saudi Arabia, France, etc.
 
 According to a physics text approx one horsepower or
 750 watts of sunlight is available per square meter
 at the earth's surface in a high sun area such as
 the Mojave Desert in California.
 There have been recent articles in several journals
 asking to take a renewed look at this as a way of
 generating electricity.
 Given an efficiency rate of 20%, it still seems that
 with 
there is a lot of available energy for these systems.
Perhaps 10 square feet (given solar for 10 hours per day)
would yield enough to power a home for one year at
4000 kwhrs.  An acre would power 4000 homes per year.
100 acres; 400,000 homes, etc.  There are a number of
desert areas which would be suitable.
Personally I feel that the pollution caused by oil
for energy consumption is too serious a health and
nature hazard to consider it preferred.
Nuclear is too hazardous, perhaps not from the concept
of the systems but because of human negligence, and error, etc.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: A Reply to Richard Stead Nuclear and Solar Energy
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:56:00 GMT

In <28536@castle.ed.ac.uk> cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:

>Now currently the amount of highly radioactive waste, is to quote Gary
>Coleman, enough to cover a football pitch one metre deep. No arguement,
>what I was trying to say was that, one of the advantges that solar enjoys
>over Nuclear fission (I don't know enough about fusion to comment), is
>that it does not produce any wastes, and that as a fuel source for the
>future, it should deserve more, a greater slice of the R&D pie.

	I think the big picture should be looked at here as well.  The
waste on the football field is essentially fuel.  I don't know if it
includes primary-side fixtures too, but let's assume it doesn't.  The
primary side is generally entombed on the site; what about the waste
from the manufacturing process for solar cells?  Where will it be put?
These questions are the main reason solar cannot be said to be the
clean power source some people make it out to be.  I've seen little to
no data on the waste products of solar cell manufacture, but they should
be considered when totalling up the waste column.

>One problem about nuclear energy, is what to do with the power stations
>once they ahve been decommisioned. I don't know what they are planning
>in the US, but over here, it involves entombing the core reactors in
>concrete, like some giant Stonehenge (now there's a thought Stonehenge
>as the remains of a stoneage  nuclear reactor! :-) ). These will be
>exposed to the elements in a way that an underground storage facility,
>won't be. Already the reactor at Chernobyl is beginning to crumble.(Okay
>it had caught fire, was a poor design and badly sited). Again much time
>and effort will be involved.

	A DOE reactor was decommissioned here in Ames a few decades ago.
The site is now a pleasant park, the only evidence of the reactor is an
unobtrusive fence and a short concrete building.  Entombment of the
reactor containment vessel seems like a viable method to me.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Energy Demand
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:08:59 GMT


I've been following the comments following on from Sue's letter about
solar energy. I would like to add a further dimension. Electricity is a
premium tool. True, but look what we use it for!  Much of the discussion
of Sue's letter did not really question what we need energy for. There
was an assumption that we need electricity and how to tap various
renewable sources to provide electricity.

Both solar and geothermal sources enjoy a considerable advantage over
other renewable systems, in that they supply  energy in a from which we
in the UK at least accounts for a large part of our annual energy
consumption, namely space heating. Using solar energy can often come
down to effective forms of demand management, rather than building large
technical supply systems. For example designing a building to catch the
sun's rays more effectively. Using solar energy will not be only be a
question of building a better tool to harness it, but asking what we need
it for.

Don't use air conditioning, open the window!

Chris  Centre for Human Ecology Edinburgh
cir@uk.ac.ed.festival 
Newsgroups: sci.energy