HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov)
Subject: Re: stuff...
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 15:16:05 GMT


Corn is petroleum intensive and therefore ethanol from corn does
not make much sense. Ethanol mixed in gas though does supposedly
reduce certain emmission and raises the oxygen content of the 
mixture. In Ontario, the Corn lobby has gotten tax incentives
to start production of ethanol. 
However, the key point that I want to raise is that ethanol
production has a much greater chance of being energy feasible
if it is produced from a perennial source. Corn crops either 
need a lot of herbicides or a lot of tillage. They also are 
nitrogen hogs and the nitgrogen comes from fossil fuels.
However, with a perennial system, the land does not have to
be tilled every year, nor does the crop have to be seeded
every year. In Canada, research is currently focussed on
coppiced poplars and willow as well as a native prairie 
grass (switchgrass). Coppicing involves the establishment
of a tree crop, and then the harvesting of the trees at 
say 5 year intervals, new shoots then grow out of the stumps.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: doug@UC780.UMD.EDU (Deac Moo of the UGC)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Reply-To: doug@UC780.UMD.EDU
Organization: The University of Maryland, University College
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:43:42 GMT

In article <jc#nrj@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>Does anyone get the idea the same thing is happening with oil?  While
>the "experts" prattle on about only a decade's worth of "proven reserve"
>remaining, the oil types, ignorant to a person, just keep on inventing
>new ways to find and recover oil.  Amazin' what you can do when you
>don't know any better.

Al Gore and the Club of Doom, er Rome have to have some reasons to peddle 
their philosophies.

                               ******
   Net postings: Demonstrating the lack of quality psychotherapy in the world.

Xref: sparky sci.energy:3999 sci.environment:10666
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:53:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Aug14.155336.9959
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug12.134910.10093@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
>In <1992Aug11.170148.12395@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>In <1992Aug8.122014.4052@colorado.edu> weverka@csn.org writes:
>>>Seven countries with largest Oil consumption in billions of barrels per year
>>>United States                   6.3
>>>Japan                           1.8
>>>West Germany                    0.8
>>>Italy                           0.7
>>>France                          0.7
>>>Canada                          0.6
>>>Britain                         0.6
>>>The U.S. imports half its Oil.  At this rate we would run out in 8 years,
>>>hence we run out this decade.  We will probably import more oil and
>>>use our own reserves more slowly as we run out, but it is clear that
>>>oil will get much more expensive as we become more dependent on imports.
>>
>>Hm, if imported oil is more expensive, then domestic oil must be
>>cheaper. Where can I fill up my car with domestic gasoline?
>>
>Phil, imported oil is no more expensive than domestic oil.
>The price of oil is affected by what economists call "the law
>of supply and demand".  Let me refrain from taxing your brain 
>with the most simplistic economic theories, but instead
>let us just say that in importing half our oil, our contribution 
>to world demand is 3.1 billion barrels per year.  When we run out 
>we will increase world demand by another 3.1 billion barrels per year.  
>This is a huge increase in world demand.  The increased demand will
>drive the oil price up.

No. US demand for oil is 6.3 billion barrels a year. That demand is
not sensitive to where the oil comes from, domestic or foreign oil
is oil. US *supply* is part of world supply, US demand is part of
world demand, oil remains oil, it has no maker's mark. When US
domestic supply is exhausted, the US will not increase world demand
for oil, it will continue to demand 6.3 billion barrels a year. What
will happen is the depleted US reservoirs mean that world *supply*
of oil will have declined. Buying from the lowest cost producer still 
makes sense, whether that producer is domestic or foreign, it's still
just part of world supply. Much of Alaskan oil is sold to Japan
because it's cheaper to ship there than down here. The East Coast
buys oil from the North Sea and the Saudis, because it's cheaper
than West Texas crude delivered here. The Midwest depends on Texas
for it's oil, because it's cheapest. Why should we want the Japanese
to buy from the Saudis, increasing Japanese costs, and for our East
Coast to buy Alaskan oil, increasing East Coast costs? Oil knows
no boundaries other than those on a balance sheet.

Gary
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:19:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: mr.1992Aug19.101915.21606
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Bo Curry (curry@hplred.HP.COM) wrote:
: 
:  |hinz@picard.med.ge.com (Dave Hinz) writes:
:  |
:  |Bo Curry (curry@hplred.HP.COM) wrote:
:  |
:  |: P.S. I have never had air conditioning in my car, even during
:  |: the 7+ years I lived in and about Atlanta. The claim that A/C
:  |: is a "necessity" is, quite simply, wrong.
:  |
:  |In other words, you have been _harming_ the environment by wasting more
:  |gasoline, due to the parasitic drag induced by having your car's windows
:   ^^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:  |open.  
:  |
:  |Ah, the misguided do-gooder.  Perhaps the worst kind.
:           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Careful Dave, your agenda is showing. Since you know nothing about what
: car(s) I was driving, or at what speeds, you have no idea whether your
: factual claim is true. You don't even know whether my car *had* windows.
: Since you know nothing about my motivations, you have no idea whether your
: personal characterization is true. In other words, you're talking through
: your hat.
: 
: Bo Curry
: Eco-Nazis for Jesus

Oh, pardon me.  I just assumed that your car was a gasoline-powered one.  I
guess being deisel powered, or cng powered, or alcohol powered, or whatever,
makes all the difference in the world.

I also assumed that you were driving something which has some degree of
aerodynamic design, that is, something that isn't a semi.  Again, I beg your
pardon.

OK, so what I am led to believe by your post is that you are driving a car
with no windows, not gasoline powered, that has a coefficient of drag 
approaching infinity, right?  Or have I misread you?

BTW, just what is my agenda?  What is it you are assuming?  Just curious.

--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.
hinz@picard.med.ge.com
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: stuff...
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:29:59 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug10.133920.4907@mlb.semi.harris.com> jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:
> In the end I'll have a car ready for another 200K miles, with power and
>appearance better then new in every detail. It may cost me $20K/10K in gas/
>maintenance to go those 200K, but that stacks up pretty nicely against a
>bunch of disposable, boring econopods (whose gas/maintenance over the same
>period will be 5K/10K). During that time the drivers of said econopods
>will have to satisfy themselves with the dubious economics of their choice,
>and the inner glow that derives from self-denial in the name of the
>environment. I expect that satisfaction will wear mighty thin when they
>park, idle or try to keep up next to me. 

I can't believe that *I* am being flamed as an econazi!!!
That's really funny.

You have, of course, totally missed the point. You are a marginal
consumer. That's an economic term and it means in this case that
you are a scavenger who is living off the wastefulness of others.
When you start trying to tell others to follow your example and
be less wasteful, you are biting the hand that feeds you. 

It's perfectly all right to nurse an old car back to health with
the use of junkyard parts, I do it myself. But you must realize
that if you tell everyone to do it, the supply of usable junkyard
parts disappears. Without an influx of *new* material, enthropy
wins and everything becomes unusable rust. The junkyards empty
of parts as everyone scrambles after them.

If you think that you can keep an old car going by buying *new*
parts one at a time, you haven't explored the new parts prices.
As an example, a Chevy HEI distributor costs $550 across the
parts counter while costing $50 at the junkyard. I *know*, I
had to replace mine, and you bet it came from the junkyard.
According to J. D. Power, and they should know, to rebuild
a third generation Camaro from *new* parts costs over $100,000.
Meanwhile you can buy a new one for $14,000.

The economics of the parts business with it's large warehousing
and inventory costs and it's complex distribution costs means
that a distributor that probably costs $35 in a just_in_time
manufacturing run of 5 million cars costs $550 in a single unit
quanity at retail 8 years after it was made.

You might also note that junkyard parts for older cars are getting
hard to find. That's because the junkyards crush them and send
them back to be melted down and turned into new parts for new
cars. It's called recycling and the auto business has been doing
it for years. That econobox you dispise is not the result of
raping the third world. It's the result of melting down old
Chevys and Fords.

Gary 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 06:12:01 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry) writes:

> |Does anyone get the idea the same thing is happening with oil? ...
> |the oil types ... just keep on inventing new ways to find and recover oil.
> |
> |John

>Purged of drivel, the argument seems to be:

> 1. Fact 
>    It was widely believed in the late 1970's that there would be fundamental
>    physical limitations on the density of RAM chips.

> 2. Alleged fact
>    That limit was estimated (by many?) to be about 256K.

You just had to be alive then.

> 3. Fact
>    The actual limit on RAM density is more than 2 orders of magnitude
>    higher than 256K.

> Conclusion
>    Recoverable oil will last forever.

>Is it just me, or do there seem to be some steps missing in this argument?


You conveniently left out one little factoid in this sequence.  That is,
while the econazis run screaming through the streets, shrieking that the 
oil supply is coming to an end "real soon now", the actual oil supply
is just like the Eveready Rabbit.  It just keeps coming and coming and coming.

Oh, but I'm sure that was merely an oversight.  Glad to have the opportunity
to correct it.

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.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:3997 sci.environment:10663
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 11 Aug 92 13:16:59 GMT
Organization: WINCO

In article <JMC.92Aug10200129@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>"Fuels to Drive our Future" is a 1990 report by the Committee on
>Production Technologies for Liquid Transportation Fuels of the
>Energy Engineering Board of the Commission on Engineering and
>Technical Systems of the National Research Council of the National
>Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the
>Institute of Medicine.  It is available from the National Academy
>Press.
>
>The book discusses a variety of technologies for producing fuels
>that can power present cars with little change.  The conclusion is
>that a variety of technologies will come into use when oil prices
>reach $30 to $40 per barrel provided greenhouse warming isn't a
>decisive consideration.  At these prices the resources will last
>quite a long time.  The committee considered several price scenarios
>and regarded as most probable a rise in oil prices to $30 a barrel
>between 10 and 20 years from 1988.  Getting fuels from biomass
>was considered to be more expensive than fossil fuels, e.g. shale
>or tar sands.
>

Hopefully, these distinguished folks gave consideration to the coupling
between oil (or generically, energy) and the cost of the alternative fuels.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:37:19 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug11.202823.14351@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>: 
>: There *are* environmental problems, of course.  You can't live without
>: having *some* kind of effect on the environment (whether it's detrimental
>: or not depends on your point of view.  For instance, I doubt I would be
>: too heartbroken if mankind did something to rid the universe of mosquitos).
>
>Not to get too pedantic, but if you rid the Earth of mosquitos, you will have
>quite an impact on many species, including frogs, bats, fish (big time),
>birds, etc.  Too many people ignore the fact that there is such a thing as
>a food chain.

Let'em eat cake, Scott. :-)

I suspect that there is no shortage of non-carnivorus insects to feed the
froggies and fishies, but if not, we can feed them corn.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4055 sci.environment:10753
From: abrown@hpcvcaj.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:46:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvca.1992Aug20.014618.6524
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

OK, I'll bite.

> ...  Then ask yourself two questions:
> 1)  Who has the best Army in the world that money can buy?

The USA.

> 2)  Who wants to buy that Army to keep themselves safe, powerful, and
> rich?
>	E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

Nobody, when they can get it for free.  If we are going to the the
policemen of the world, we should be charging for the service.  And we
should *not* be selling (or worse yet giving away) the military
technology that was developed at great public expense.
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
    Not representing my employer.
    There is no free lunch. ---Milton Friedman
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 02:38:13 GMT


I am not in the mood to get into a debate on global warming, but
I will refer you to Nature which publishes the scientific studies
in the area (one of the may or june issues had a series of articles).
But global warming does not mean that it is going to be warmer 
everywhere. The weather system is a very complicated dynamical 
system, and dynamic systems can often end up in chaotic regimes.
Chaos results when a small change in a certain parameter gives
rise to large unpredictable changes in other variables. Our mean
temperature in the east may be lower than usual, but the fluct-
uations seem to me (and a lot of old farmers that I have talked
to) to be increasing.
As to costing out carbon loading, it may not be easy, but so are
 a lot of other things that do get determined in our society 
(such as determining the damage compensation from bhopal, how 
much is one life worth?) Does it make more sense to stick our heads
in the sand and let future generations clean up our mess or shouldn't 
we take a best guess estimate on the effects of climate change
and start including the associated costs in our budgets? We took 
our time with DDT and now look at the state of the american mascot.
We are taking our time with ozone, and in Canada the feds are now
warning us not go outside with unprotected skin. Acid rain has
already killed more than half the lakes in Sweden. Who produced
the pollution and who is paying for it? Why do certain businesses
make a lot of money off pollutive processes, and then the average
tax payer has to pay the cost through the US superfund? 

As for the use it or it just sits there unused attitude with respect 
to fossil reserves, how do we know what all the future uses of 
fossils fuels will be? Certain plastics might be only manufacturable
from crude. If all the external costs of fossil usage were included 
in the price, then the economic system would encourage the develop-
ment of alternatives at a more appropriate time. However, the hidden
subsidies distort the economic incentives, and as such I expect
serious social dislocations will occur when major shortages force
a conversion.

The expressed continuous growth or die attitude seems appropriate
for cancerous tissue, but not for an economic system dependent 
on a functioning ecology.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 04:05:31 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>No need to celebrate ignorance.  The oil companies employ far more experts 
>I do wonder, though, why we hear so often from "experts" outside the
>field and so seldom from those actually working in the field.  Sure,
>they're busy doing their jobs, but IMHO they also have a duty to 
>educate the public about what is going on, instead of leaving us at
>the mercy of various activists and muck-raking journalists.

Minor nit.  The oil people have no such duty.  We each have a duty to
educate ourselves.  No one else is going to do it for us.  I pity
anyone who listens to activists OR muck-raking journalists.  That is,
of course, except to be better able to know the enemy.


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
From: burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris)
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:43:18 GMT

In article <1077@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <11AUG92.07565241@wl.aecl.ca> zukicn@wl.aecl.ca writes:
>
>>On the other hand one can argue how often one's wife is pregnant 8^), 

>I congratulate you on your courage and endurance.  I have a few questions
>though.  What is your humidity like and how long are your summers.
>
>Down here in the lovely state of Georgia, (North Georgia at that) 35-40C
>is normal, any day that it drops as low as 30C is considered a very cool
>summer day.  Also our summer lasts from May through September.  It's a

>>Nermin Zukic
>-- 
>--Mark
>
    Must be some global warming in effect. When I lived in Atlanta (1974), I
don't remember the "normal" temperature being 35-40C (95-104F). I don't
remember any days that year above 100F, though there may have been a few.
Besides, the normal temperature means what? Average temperature, average
highest temperature, or what? Wish I hadn't sold my Weather and Climate text
back to the bookstore.

Jim Burris
From: bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->NEVER<-
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:41:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Aug19.144115.28484
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Sooner or later, we will come to the point where fossil extraction
will require more per unit energy than is present in the resource.
At this point, the resource does effectively dissappear. Also 
a number of current reserves have high environmental risks 
associated with them (Alaska, North Atlantic off Newfoundland,...)

Alternative sources have much room for development still. Photo-
voltaics are not close to their theoretical maximums. Ocean-
thermal (OTEC), biomass, hydrides for hydrogen storage, battery
technology,... also have much room for development. Also,
as has been very clear in the microcomputer market, cost
estimates can take a large dive with mass production and 
new production technologies. However, when something on 
the order of 90% of the DOE's alternative energy 
research budget goes to fission and fusion, it seems
obvious to me that there is a strong bias in government
policy. Where would photo-voltaics be now, if they  
received even 5% of the DOE research budget?
From: doug@dsij.uucp (Doug Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re:  Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 12 Aug 1992 16:06:26 GMT
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1992Aug11.165335.12062@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <14117@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>more Canadian opinions on air conditioning.
>
>As a person who grew up in Florida, I personally don't care what
>Canadians think of automotive air conditioning. It's like a priest
>talking about sex or a blind man talking about television.

  As a person who grew up south of Detroit, I suspect you're one of those
tourist types who comes across the river with snow skis on the July 1st
weekend.

--

Doug Johnson		  *
Windsor, ON		  *		@
Canada			  *
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:54:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.200146.8958@nap.amoco.com> pgravel@nap.amoco.com (Philip L. Gravel) writes:

>So when you cite petroleum reserves, are you citing those that can can be 
>produced by primary recovery?  Secondary?  Tertiary?  And at what price?  
>Today's $20-22/barrel?  How much are you willing to pay for oil?  That will, 
>in part, determine how much oil is available.

	This is a very good point.  As we deplete our oil reserves,  the
remaining oil will be harder to recover and the price will go up.  (Also,
the more dispersed that newly discovered reserves will be and the more
effort required in exploration.)  In the simplest economic analysis,  sooner
or later the price of motor fuel (or any other petroleum product) will
rise above the price of alternatives (i.e. methanol from coal or biomass,
electric cars powered by wind/solar/coal/nuclear,  whatever.)  In reality,
external costs and costs related to infrastructure change complicate this,
but the idea is that sooner or later oil becomes uneconomic.


--