HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:30:53 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <STEINLY.92Oct6115823@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>   such food, and encourage others to do the same. Here in the PNW, I can
>   grow or buy salad crops locally all year around. I humbly suggest that
>   those living in regions where this is not so easy either alter their
>   diets and/or seek methods of year-round farming that will work for the
>   foods they'd like to eat.
>
>Might I humbly suggest that Alaskans, many Canadians and others
>in climates inimical to farming for more than a fraction of the
>year move ASAP to PNW or California that they may enjoy the benefits
>of locally grown fresh produce year round - especially if they have
>problems with diets high in animal fats, salt or nitroamines - unless
>you're willing to bet on significant warming in the immediate future

Even in relatively mild areas of the United States, where agriculture
is a major factor in the economy, the statements of the original poster
are not allways applicable.

In Indiana, the major crops are pork meat (yea!), corn (ouch!), and 
soybeans (bleech!). Could someone come up with a plan that accomodates
these, is nutritionally correct, and does not require out-of-area-code
vegetables and fruits?

:-)

Spiros


-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
From: tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: --Body Shop & Wind vs. CO2
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:22:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601782:000:2863
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Oct  1 10:22:00 1992


From: Tom Gray <tgray>
Subject: --Body Shop & Wind vs. CO2

/* Written  9:37 am  Oct  1, 1992 by tgray in cdp:en.energy */
/* ---------- "--Body Shop & Wind vs. CO2" ---------- */
BODY SHOP WILL USE WIND TO
OFFSET CO2 PRODUCTION

The Body Shop, a tremendously successful cosmetics firm based in
the United Kingdom that has made environmental consciousness a
centerpiece of its business philosophy, announced in May that it
plans to use a windfarm to offset carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
associated with its electricity consumption.

The Body Shop and its founder, Anita Roddick, have become well-
known in recent years for policies such as recycling its
containers, banning the use of animals in testing its cosmetic
products, and campaigning to halt the destruction of the Earth's
rain forests.  Such well-publicized efforts on behalf of the
environment have led to fanatically devoted customers, according to
Inc. magazine, and explosive growth in sales.

The trade newsletter Global Environmental Change Report said the
firm is seeking to identify a site for a wind project that would
produce 10 million kWh of electricity annually -- about the same
amount as its headquarters operations in Watersmead, West Sussex,
consume.  Although the Watersmead facility would not obtain its
electricity directly from wind, a spokesperson said, the windfarm
would effectively make it "CO2-neutral."

The spokesperson said The Body Shop is also setting energy
efficiency targets for all of its United Kingdom facilities and
will install renewable energy systems where feasible.  The company
plans to erect a wind turbine to power a new visitor center in
Watersmead, the article said.

For further information, contact John Grounds, The Body Shop,
Watersmead, Littlehampton, West Sussex BN17 6LS, United Kingdom,
phone 011-44-903-731-500, fax 011-71-726-115.  Copies of the
company's environmental self-audit are available for five pounds.

===============================

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted, at no cost.

For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back issues
on Usenet or Bitnet, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable
energy, energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The electronic
edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.

*******************************************************************
Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org    UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!tgray
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.activism,fl.general,sci.engr.civil,alt.hurricane.andrew
From: doan@saturn.glassboro.edu
Subject: Re: Hurricane damage to Turkey Point nuclear reactors
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:18:57 GMT

In article <4129@novavax.UUCP> grohol@novavax.UUCP (John Grohol) writes:
>From: grohol@novavax.UUCP (John Grohol)
>Subject: Re: Hurricane damage to Turkey Point nuclear reactors


>Date: 26 Sep 92 14:41:53 GMT
>Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>
>>Point reactors," said Martin Gelfand, research director at the Safe
>>Energy Communication Council. "Turkey Point had a poor performance
>>record before the hurricane. FP&L should use its insurance funds to
>>exploit the vast energy supplies available through efficiency and
>>renewable sources."
>
>What a bunch of propaganda! First they claim the plant suffered
>extensive damage, and they re talking about operating Unit 3 by
>the end of the month. Obviously the damage wasn't *that* extensive.
>
>And please, pray tell, show me these so-called "energy supplies
>available through efficiency and renewable sources." Coal doesn't
>fit that bill (unless you claim a million years "renewable").
>Oil is the same way. Both pollute our atmosphere exhorbitantly.
>
>If the American public weren't so damned paranoid about letting
>the national radioactive waste site be built, we wouldn't be so
>stalled on nuclear technology. A plant built and desgined today
>can re-use 90% of its own waste to produce additional energy.
>The eventual waste that does come from these new-generation
>plants is greatly less radioactive than those of yesteryear.
>
>If Turkey Point is to be rebuilt, it should be done as an
>all-nuclear facility.
>
>-John
>
>-- 
>  John M. Grohol, M.S.    grohol@novavax.nova.edu     Nova University
>--::--::--::--::--::--::--  the indigo girls:  --::--::--::--::--::--::--
>   "Dark and dangerous like a secret that gets whispered in a hush,
>    When I wake the things I dreamt about you last night make me blush."
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: hurricanes and conservation
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 12:50:09 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In sci.energy rovero@guam.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>...  So were the pieces over the weekend that dealt with the
>"damage" Hurricane Andrew did to the Everglades and Louisiana bayous.
>
>And I thought hurricanes were *part* of the environment....   :-)

Hurricanes are a natural force but Florida is no longer in a natural state.

Species that have surived a great number of hurricanes in the past
may be made extinct by a hurricane now because we have greatly reduced
their range or population.  It is the capacity to survive natural
catastrophes that determines the minimum viable population for many species.

Hurricanes may also exacerbate existing artificial stresses on ecosystems.
For example, there is concern that introduced plants such as Casurinas
will invade areas of the Everglades disturbed by the Hurricane Andrew.

Andrew Taylor
Xref: sparky sci.environment:11746 talk.environment:4086 talk.politics.misc:49817
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:16:35
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<JMC.92Oct5194918@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Oct6.185940.27881@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: pauld@cs.washington.edu's message of Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:59:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.185940.27881@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:


   In article <JMC.92Oct5194918@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> 
   My Favorite Professor of Technological Optimism (jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU) writes:

						 Why shouldn't people
   >drive whenever they feel like it?  I claim doing so is sustainable
   >and extendable to the whole world.  Suppose I am right.  Would it
   >still be wrong to drive a quarter mile?

   Now you're bothering to claim that sustainability is worth paying even
   lip-service to ? How kind. And yes, if it was sustainable, and
   extendable to arbitrary population densities across the entire planet
   (and beyond, if appropriate), then sure, driving a quarter mile would
   be just fine.

That's a very strict criterion! There is no activity that can be
sustained for arbitary population densities across the entire planet!
Perhaps you should restrict your criteria for permissibly sustainable
activities under mildly realistic scenarios?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	*
From: Michael.Friedman@mailbox.bison.mb.ca (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: . . . Radioactive Sand Proves Nuclear Reprocessing Unlawful
Date: 24 Sep 92 21:17:03 CST

Organization: Oracle Corporation

In article <53803@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.021456.5853@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>It was my rather caustic response that sparked this whole flame war.
>>One item I questioned was the number of curies (units may be wrong)
>>release by Chernobyl and the number that Sellafield was expected to
>>release per year.  I pointed out that it seemed inconceivable that
>>Sellafield would really release half as much radiation as Chernobyl
>>every year.  You asked why.  Someone else then pointed out that the
>>Greenpeace Chernobyl number did not include noble gas releases but
>>that the Sellafield number did.

>>I think that if you want to question this you need to find the evidence.

>You don't know the units of measurement. 

Nope.  Don't have them memorized.  Do you?

>You don't know the numbers.

Nope.  don't have them memorized.  I can look them up.  Are you
claiming you have them memorized?

>You are completely ignorant about the, well documented, history
>of Windscale/Sellafield. 

Which is irrelevant to this particular argument.

>Your argumentation is based entirely on an
>uninformed idea of what is "reasonable".

Are you more informed?  If so, please inform me.  How is it reasonable
that a nuclear installation will deliberatedly release half as much
radiation each year as the Chernobyl disaster did?

>And yet, you have no qualms
>to stay your braying about "lies" and scientific standards. 

Nope.  Because someone else posted the actual numbers for Chernobyl,
including and not including noble gases and claimed that the
Sellafield numbers included noble gases.  This made logical sense.
The Greenpeace claim did not.

Also, please work on your reading comprehension - I didn't mention
scientific standards.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.

 * Origin: The Electronic Mailbox (1:348/7.0)
From: chwiii@cup.portal.com (Charles H Wittman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Fugative emissions and toxic substances list
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:30:31 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

If you need info abt fugitive emissions from EPA try ORD (office
of research and development) bbs hotline 1 800 258 9605....
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Anti-Gore article
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:06:09 GMT

Joel Hanes (jjh00@diag.amdahl.com) wrote:

[Background comments on Vietnam experience deleted]


: I'm voting for Clinton.
: 
: Note that Al Gore _did_ go to 'Nam, and he doesn't seem to have
: any problem stomaching Clinton.

	Yes, I did selectively delete.  But Carl Lydick is right --
I forgot about talk.environment.  That's where this discussion belongs.
I don't know how to set followups to talk.environment, but I won't 
continue the thread here.
	(Sigh.  Another newsgroup.)

	Thanks for your input, Joel.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: sci.environment

 |(BC) (list of actinides analyzed in environmental fate studies):
 |(Th, U, Pu, Am, Cu) by factors of ~1000, while other closely related species
                  ^^
Oops. Cm, of course. The Romans had priority on "Cu".
 |don't seem to take them up at all.
 Bo Curry
From: sn00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudha Neelakantan)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:24:05 GMT
	<1a4kjvINNf10@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1466601781@igc.apc.org>, Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
> >
> ><responding to Carl Lydick>
> >
> >Sorry, Carl, I don't understand your point.  What in the material
> >quoted leads you to conclude that solar is not cost-competitive?
> 
> The fact that the government has decided that it's necessary to rob people who
> don't use solar in order to encourage others to use solar.
>
> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

In that response, you fail to consider intergenerational equity
considerations.  All those who don't use solar, or perhaps wind energy
are stealing from the generations of the future whose access to
non-renewable resources is curtailed.

Sudha

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
   Sudha K. Neelakantan     < Clouds come floating into my life,  
    The Heinz School of      \ no longer to carry rain or usher storm   
Public Policy and Management  \ but to add color to my sunset sky.
      Carnegie Mellon          >    - Rabindranath Tagore -
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:06:14 GMT

In article <1a4kjvINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1466601781@igc.apc.org>, Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>>
>><responding to Carl Lydick>
>>
>>Sorry, Carl, I don't understand your point.  What in the material
>>quoted leads you to conclude that solar is not cost-competitive?
>
>The fact that the government has decided that it's necessary to rob people who
>don't use solar in order to encourage others to use solar.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


Moneys used to subsidize solar energy use is money that would have been used
to build new capacity instead.  The capacity made available by such
efficiency retrofitting is much cheaper than building new capacity.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: donb@crash.cts.com (Donald Bowen)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:34:23 GMT

In <1992Sep30.120521.16948@news.acns.nwu.edu> len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:

>so when I pay property and other taxes to pay for road construction,
>I contribute to the use by others of those roads for which I get little
>direct benefit.   Simiarly, the driving I do is mostly confined to
	All food delivered to stores, bycicle parts, computers and parts
are delivered by truck.

>local streets and roads.  Hence, the portion of my gas tax going
>to maintain interstate roads subsidizes commuters in California
	Fresh produce delivered by truck is speeded to your local salad
bar over those roads you do not want to pay for.

>and elsewhere who drive on those roads.  Of course, I get indirect
>benefits from those roads, e.g., some of my groceries are delivered
>by trucks using them.  However, one could argue that such things would
>be better done through the price of my groceries.
	The cost of delivery by truck is paid for by the shipper.  The truck
owner pays heafty fees and taxes to use the road.  Those costs include the
local and federal highway gas taxes, Regrestration and fuel cards for every
state the truck operates in.

	Trucks are taxed heavly because the taxes are hidden from most
voters.  The well developed interstate and local highway system is what
makes it possible for some of us to live in an apartment, ride bycicles to
work and pretend that we get no benefit from the roads.

	If you want to jump on road building, get after the political hacks
that use road bulding "demonstration Projects" to buy votes and get fat
campaign contributions.  Get after the people that have to drive a car to go
2 blocks to the fast food joint because "it is to hard to walk in high heels."

	The problem is not the highways but the people that use them.  
Politicians that bow to local presure and use zoning to seperate employment
from where the people live.  Management that has to see a head in order to
feel that work is being done.
From: egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:30:45 GMT
Organization: PHILOSYS Software GmbH, Unterschleissheim, Germany

In article <1a4kjvINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1466601781@igc.apc.org>, Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>>
>><responding to Carl Lydick>
>>
>>Sorry, Carl, I don't understand your point.  What in the material
>>quoted leads you to conclude that solar is not cost-competitive?
>
>The fact that the government has decided that it's necessary to rob people who
>don't use solar in order to encourage others to use solar.

They are just discarding the subsidies for the dirty power sources.
This allows for more "free market economy" in the energy market.
That some people think that they are robbed does only mean that
they are not knowing the *REAL* costs of the energy generated
by this power sources. *REAL* means money which has been pumped into
development in the past by the governments, the subsidies for building
and using the power plants, and the costs which are caused by the
pollutants of these power plants at present and in the future, but
for which is not currently paid for.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Naepflein                   _--_|\       Phone: +49 8452 70099
Sedelbreite 15        A fan of  /      \      Mail:  egn%philos.uucp@unido
W-8069 Geisenfeld               \_.--._/
Germany                               v
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: --SMUD Combines Solar, Efficiency
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:18:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.150614.1287@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

> Moneys used to subsidize solar energy use is money that would have been used
> to build new capacity instead.  The capacity made available by such
> efficiency retrofitting is much cheaper than building new capacity.

Viewed another way...

If electric power production were a perfect market, all consumers
would be paying the marginal cost of new capacity.  Producers with
lower cost generators would make a large profit (and, producers with
above-marginal cost generators would be driven out of business).

Because utilities are regulated monopolies, however, users are often
charged something below the marginal cost of new capacity.  This
market failure leads to inefficient allocation of capital.  Subsidies
for demand side management are one way of counteracting this market
failure.

Another market failure is the differing discount rates for consumers
vs. utlitity investments.  If I am going to be selling my house in 5
years, it doesn't make much sense for me to install improvements that
take 10 years to pay back, unless I can be confident those
improvements are reflected in the value of the house.  Utilities
regularly invest with horizons of 20 or 30 years.  The difference here
is that the consumer places a higher value on liquidity.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu