HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Arguments
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:33:37 GMT

In article <31462@goofy.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:

>Side note:  Isn't electricity one of the major exports from Canada 
>to the US?  I'd be interested in knowing what fraction of the
>exported power was Hydro and what fraction was CANDU ...

In Ontario (net 1988 exports, 3 TWh), one can only guess that the energy 
came from each source in the same ratio that baseload power is supplied
(assuming exports were made during off-peak hours), which would mean about 
2/3 nuclear, 1/3 hydro.

Quebec (and probably B.C.) sell excess hydro-generated power, amount unknown.  

New Brunswick sells excess nuclear-generated power from its single Candu-6
plant.  I would guess it has a peak supply contract for about 300 or 400 MW.
This power goes to the northeastern U.S., who apparently don't mind
nuclear power as long as it is across the border...

>E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: mikep@polaris.unm.edu (Mike Prine CIRT)
Subject: Need info on small wind turbins
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:18:51 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: usa

	Could someone provide me with some information on where I might 
order a small wind generator. Not having a great site for wind energy I'm not 
interested in getting a 500+ watt generator. Something in the 50-250 watt 
range is more my speed. A 600watt solar array provides the majority of my 
house's energy need but as I am building a demonstration system a small wind 
setup would be nice for completeness. Noise and safety are a major 
consideration so any unit with a gear box is probably out. Our winds are mainly
light when they exist but occasionally get into the 60-70 range. Since I
live in a residential neighborhood near the end of the airport's glide path
the machine will be at less than optimum height and must handle the resulting
turbulence without throwing blades into the neighbors yards. 
Thanks in advance for the info.
-- 
Michael Lee Prine	 IRC (Information Resource Center) consultant
Internet: mikep@hydra.unm.edu, Bitnet: MIKEP@UNMB, Phone: 1-505-277-8148
--
Never use a hammer if a handgrenade is handy!
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roofs
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:11:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

CJL>>The above assumes the white roof also has a high reflectivity in the
CJL>>infared region of the spectrum.

CJL>The above also assumes that the primary means of shedding heat in the winte
CJL>radiative.  Bad assumption, in most cases.

CJL>>A black roof, on the other hand, emits like hell into the winter night
CJL>>sky.

CJL>And both warm any air that comes into contact with them quite nicely.

The question was which will be the warmer. Admittedly, on a windy, cloud
covered night there won't be any difference; but on a quiet, clear
night the same house with a white roof will be the warmer, if only
slightly. It will be considerbly cooler in the summer.

One of the problems with solar water heaters is that they can freeze up
and burst on clear, cold nights due to radiation effects, even though
the air temperature is considerably above freezing. Most systems
automatically drain the black surfaced panels at night to prevent this
problem.

hhs.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 25 Sep 92 22:31:47 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep25.201350.18192@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Snide Pucker) writes:
>In article <53927@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>#>
>#>There is a common belief among some technical workers that real world 
>#>problems should be as amenable to simple calculations as were the problems
>#>in their textbooks. And bureaucracies like nice simple numerical
>#>answers. The combination is rather dangerous.
>
>   Unfortunately, we do not have an infinite amount of time on this planet,
>   and condensation of facts and opinions is required.  It is exactly this
>   forcing of a "readily-digestable" answer that got the nuclear industry
>   into the bind it is fighting its way out of.  It also forces people to
>   overstate their claims in order to prove their points quickly (if 
>   watching this newsgroup makes this believable).

I don't think that there is a good excuse for overstating claims. It
rapidly leads to rather dull shouting matches and leads the public to
a well founded distrust of everyone. Feynman was right, scientists 
have a responsibility to lean over backwards to point out the limitations
of their knowledge and the possibility of error in their work. BTW, please
don't take this as a criticism, in fact you have been very responsible in 
this discussion. If nuclear power ever regains some public trust, it
will be due to well reasoned and calm advocacy, and will be despite the
shrill efforts of some supposed nuclear advocates.


>
>#>  [...] Rather, probability is a numeral measure of a state
>#>  of knowledge, a degree of belief, a state of confidence."
>#>  SOURCE: L.V. Konstantinov "On the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants"
>#>  Nuclear Engineering and Design 114 (1989) 2 Page 183
>
>   I absolutely (cf. previous post) disagree with this definition (i.e.
>   this is swill).
>   Uncertainty in confidence levels is _one_ factor of probability
>   assessment.  Since a containment has never collapsed due to concrete
>   shearing, should we assign this a high probability if we aren't sure
>   whether or not this can actually happen and we don't have any 
>   quantitative data on this phenomenon?  

No. But we should remember that our analysis depends on a great deal
of unknowns and not confuse the resulting number with, say, the 
probability that a pair of dice will fall with the number 7 on top.

>   Just because the diesel backup generators have a high probability of
>   failure means that we don't know any better?  B---shit.

Not sure what you are getting at here.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: LOGIC FAULT! Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:50:27 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <19v8k7INNahj@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>Ok, then Yackadamn, how about YOU support YOUR claim that comparison of
>worst-case scenarios is the valid way to deal with risk.  Please note that such
>a comparison rules out solar power (a nova's a pretty serious worst-case
>scenario).

The inevitable nova will happen with or without solar power on earth.
You have confounded cause and effect ...

If you want to argue that the presence of solar panels on earth will
cause the sun to nova and their absence will stop it, I'm dying to 
hear the 'logic' ... (or was a ;-) ommitted?) 


-- 

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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kiml@aho.no (Kim B.  Larsen)
Subject: Fuel Cell technology for Antarctica?!
Organization: Arkitekthogskolen i Oslo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:18:11 GMT

I am designing an Antarctic scientific research station for my diploma at the
Oslo School of Architecture. I seek to use an environemt sound technology
for powering the "thing" and have been looking into the fuel cell technology.

Hydrogen-powered fuel cells obviously needs hydrogen. Is making hydrogen out
of metanol the best thing to do?! And I have read something about it being
possible to make metanol out of normal biodegradable waste. One could then
assume that it would be possible to use the human waste from the station as
fuel - and the only waste left would be water which is quite handy.

I am interested in getting in contact with people applying this technology
to real life projects (fuel-cell buses etc.)

Kim Baumann Larsen - the Oslo School of Architecture - Norway
                     kimbl@ulrik.uio.no / kiml@aho.no
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 26 Sep 92 02:24:59 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep25.211427.23513@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Zika) writes:
>In article <53927@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep24.202053.26914@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Snide Pucker) writes:
>>
>>There is a common belief among some technical workers that real world 
>>problems should be as amenable to simple calculations as were the problems
>>in their textbooks.
>
>And the tacit assumption is that those engineering doing PRA are only looking
>for a solution as amenable as those as simple (? not the problems in _my_
>textbooks) as "textbook" answers.  Give them a little credit here -- there
>_are_ engineers that act on a different motivation than simplification
>(like an attempt to model reality!)

Not my assumption, tacit or otherwise. I've been arguing that people who
actually know something about this problem are not as enamored of 
over-simplified models as are some of our friends here on the net.



>
>>And bureaucracies like nice simple numerical
>>answers. The combination is rather dangerous.
>>
>>    "It should be noted that  the qualititative
>>  aggregate results of PSAs, e.g. probability for core melt, for releases of
>>  radioactive materials or for health effects on the public should not be
>>  interpreted as frequencies in a statistical sense, although they are
>>  expressed in like units. Rather, probability is a numeral measure of a state
>>  of knowledge, a degree of belief, a state of confidence."
>>  SOURCE: L.V. Konstantinov "On the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants"
>>  Nuclear Engineering and Design 114 (1989) 2 Page 183
>
>So, do you suggest that a more complicated model based on the same
>_imperfect_ probabilities is better?  What is this model?  I find your
>criticism difficult to swallow when no better solution is presented (or at
>least a suggestion on the direction that PRA _should_ be going)

From my, limited, readings of the PRA literature, I have the impression
that there is a lot of reasonably  clever research going on and that
people are experimenting with models. I don't claim to have any special
insight into what models should be used. I do claim that, contrary to
what some people have claimed here, PRAs  are limited tools which should be
regarded as data points, but not as definitive answers. And I claim that
it is a grave error to imagine that a linear risk model can be used to 
obtain an objective answer to the question of whether or not it is a good
thing to develop nuclear power.  This debate features repeated assertions that
we are in the midst of a battle betweenationalists who are convinced
by the results of certain nuclear risk estimates, and anti-rationalists
who are not persuaded by these magical numbers. These arguments rest on
a fundamental ignorance of the limits of PRA methodologies and a naive
faith in numerically presented estimates. 



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:03:37 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <1992Sep22.194003.12040@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
:TMI was an 
:unforseen failure mode, and the "thing" limited civil damage, as designed.

*WRONG* *WRONG* *WRONG*  TMI was a *PREDICTED* failure mode that was predicted
in WASH-1400 as is documented in the Kemery Report on TMI.  The idea that
TMI was not predicted is simple urban myth from the anti-nuke folks, just
like the urban myth about plutonium being the most toxic substance in the
world.  

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:01:02 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep28.221529.21803@hsv3.lsil.com> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.170409.29413@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>The need for power generation is there.
>>*Something* has to be used to generate that power.
>
>That's where you are failing to comprehend the true genius of the "soft
>energy paths" people.  It is possible to generate infinite energy by
>conservation, with no energy generation at all.  That is what has made
>Bangladesh is the richest country on Earth.
>
>(And if you believe that one, I've got a carburetor that gets 200
>miles per gallon of water that I'll sell you...)

What I'd like to believe is that you are eventually going to generate
either the apology or the reference  that you owe me. Perhaps you've
forgotten your promise already? I may have the old posts on disk if you'd
like a reminder.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:17:49 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct1183330@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Dingo's concept of messages getting through is forcing people to repeat
>your propaganda.
>
>What would happen if a utility put the message in a flier and then
>said, "However, here are some of the advantages of using more
>electricity"?  They would find out the next time their allowed rates were
>being set.  You S.O.B.'s have them by the balls, but I don't work
>for a utility and can say what I please.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

Temper, temper.  Maybe John McCarthy would like to suggest what the
benefits of using more electricity are if the same energy _services_
can be had while using less electricity.  While on the subject of freely
speaking ones mind, I _personally_ know of two people who work at
the National Renewables Energy Lab (formerly SERI) who can't voice
their opinions and/or research on renewables because it doesn't fit
in with the ideology of their Republican bosses.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Organization: LSI Logic/Headland Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:23:00 GMT

In article <54279@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>Typical. You state something which is false, then you post a series of
>loud complaints about the stupidity, ignorance, and scientific illiteracy
>of someone who points out that you are wrong, then when confronted with 
>evidence you offer to look it up, and finally you make some plea for
>mercy on the grounds of what a long trip it is to the library. 

Typical lack of reading comprehension.  I *DID* go to the library,
and said so.  Several libraries.  They did not have the journals.
Libraries having the journals are those I do not have access to,
not being a student at Stanford or UC Berkely or whatnot. 

Doubtless your reading comprehension of these journals is of a 
similar quality to your comprehension of my previous posting.
I.e., you skim for something you can wrench out of context and
rewrite to fit your prejudices.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                     "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in 
LSI Logic/Headland Products        front of Congressional hearings."
sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp                        -- Meryl Streep
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:03:47 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct5.190509.13588@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.155036.11517@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> or the IR drop becomes really excessive. Can that reasonably be done with 
>> aluminum, or even copper? 
>...
>> would be a cable of 2.48 million CM, or about 1.6 inches diameter.
>> Well what do you know, you could do it after all if you installed
>> roughly 224 million pounds of copper line per 900 MW you wished to
>> transfer. What's copper going for per pound these days?
>
>
>High voltage lines are made of aluminum.  It is more conductive,
>per *pound*, than copper.  Cheaper too.

I think it is usually aluminum wound on a steel core.  The steel 
carries the weight and allows for longer spans between towers,
while the aluminum is a very cheap conductor.

At any rate, what is the typical size of conductors on major 
transmission lines?  Is a 1.6 inch line 'beyond the pale'?

At a dollar a pound (which seem high to me for aluminum, but who
knows... I don't have a WSJ commodities section handy...) that is
a cost of $224 million (even assuming it conducts the same
per pound as copper).  Given the cost of a 900 MW plant, the
cost of wire doesn't seem all that much...  (At $2k/kW it would
be $2m/mW or $1800 million for the plant.  That puts the cost
of the wire at about 12% of the plant.  I have no idea if 
finished and installed cable is anywhere near $1/lb, though...

-- 

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.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 27 Sep 1992 15:24:55 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep26.083414.8780@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.195247.1075@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>So: how many worst-case failures, of the kind you refer to, have happened
>>in the history of the world to reactors of the kind used in the U.S. and
>>Canada?  I dare say none have.
>>
>>How many average-case failures have occurred?  I dare say more than zero.
>>
>>Since more average-case failures have occurred than worst-case failures,
>>it seems ludicrous to suggest that a worst-case analysis is a better
>>means of comparison than an average-case analysis.
>>
>>And so I reiterate my question: what is this obsession you have with
>>worst-case failure modes?
>
>By this logic, since I've never died and I've lived a relatively 
>long time already, and all the bad things I've ever experienced
>were far less than 'worse case' (i.e. dying) I shouldn't worry
>about the possibility that I might someday die, since it has never
>happened in my history and must therefore be so remote as to be a
>ludicrous thing to even consider...

Bullshit.  You've presumably seen (or heard of) other people dying.

>Ditto the case for condoms.  Since I've got a very low chance of getting
>AIDS (or getting someone pregnant) why worry about it?  Ditch that 
>condom today!

Again, there are numerous examples of people getting AIDS or getting pregnant.

>The 'average-case' failure of lack of a condom is that
>you have a great time.  Once in a while you get some treatable disease.
>Only very rairly would you get AIDS or have a pregnancy.  So what is
>this obsession with the worst-case failure modes?

Well, what if I were to tell you that there's some horrible disease, much worse
than AIDS that you might get.  Of course, nobody's ever been known to have this
disease, it's just that it's possible to imagine it, and the action of the
disease is plausible.  Is the possibility of getting that imagined disease
going to be a deterrent to you?

>The fact is that we havn't had enough reactor-years of experience to 
>have had the very low probability modes of failure manifest.

Right.  Now, look closely at the circular argument you just made:  No matter
HOW MANY reactor-years of experience we have, you can STILL make that claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Yack's daemons (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:06:52 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>Your point is nonsense, despite the
>long words you seem so proud of. Anyone wanting technical information
>on this issue could consult the record of the NRC hearings which closed
>Yankee Rowe precisely because of concerns about loss of ductility.

I performance-tested the coolant heating system at TMI-1 and my employees
did the same at several other plants.  But what do I know?  

Now yack, I know that being there and doing things does not in your book 
qualify one next to words printed on paper but maybe, just maybe this time 
you'll listen.  NOT!

BTW, Yankee Rowe was closed because it was deemed not economically
practical to bring the plant up to current standards.  Since it is a tiny
plant and a very old one, this makes sense.  Should be an interesting
decommissioning experience to watch.  

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.energy