HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:05:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.190204.10282@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Go *try* to *put on* a car with a CD of .19 then come back and tell
> us how many you think the auto buying public would buy. You don't
> so much get in a car with that kind of CD as you wear it. Look at
> recumberant human powered vehicles for .19 CD.

No -- you are confusing the drag coefficient, C_D, with drag itself.
C_D is a dimensionless parameter that depends on the shape, but not
(much) on the size, of a body.  The C_D of a 747 is a lot less than
.19.  Drag goes as 1/2 C_D V^2 rho S, where V is the velocity of the
air flow, S the cross sectional area, and rho the density of air.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au (Dale Smithyman)
Subject: Re: NEWS: UN Convenes Special Meeting on Nuclear Transports
Organization: Telecom Australia, Information Technology Development
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:43:46 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec14161859@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>A very ingenious press release, interspersing what the IMO and IAEA
>said with Greenpeace propaganda and lies.  For example, referring
>to the plutonium being extracted from the used fuel elements as
>waste is an intentional lie.
>--

Rather than tell us it is a lie, back up your claim. What do the processing
plants do? Where does the plutonium Japan is now shipping coming from? Why
the uproar if these plants are as safe and unpolluting as you think they are?
Why does England need a new plant?

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

 All we ever seem to hear from you are knee jerk, antagonistic reactions
 which show how shallow your opinions really are. Explaining your comments
 will help to stop you from looking like a radical.

			Dale (a 'moderate' greenie)
      

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Smithyman		ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au
The views expressed here are not necessarily the same as those of my employer
(bless his unbleached cotton socks).
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:28:34 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec15.171359.22686@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <Dec14.191317.25218@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu writes:

|> >crippled.  The mode just needs to change.  For example
|> >electric cars and electric trains.  If we decided that the
|> >airline industry couldn't handle the tax and there was no
|> >alternative then you just wouldn't tax that mode so much and
|> >since the supply would be greater (autos not using it) it
|> >might be cheaper overall.
|> 
|> No, you're still the victim of faulty economics. If the gas tax
|> goes up significantly, say to a dollar a gallon, then operating
|> a gasoline car becomes more expensive. Perhaps so much more expensive
|> that it becomes breakeven with an electric car (though I doubt it).
|> Now what does that do to your cost per mile? It doubles it whether
|> you drive the cheaper gas car on expensive gasoline or the expensive
|> electric on cheap electricity. Either way your cost per mile just
|> doubled. Since the US economy is built around transportation, doubling
|> the cost of transportation cripples the economy. It doesn't matter
|> if the cost is in the vehicle or in the fuel, it's still a doubling
|> of cost. So it can't be cheaper overall.
|> 
By cheaper overall I meant the price of aviation fuel.

"victim of faulty economics"?  Isn't that the only kind and
aren't we all victims? :-)  The range of the focus of the analysis
can change the result.  If you look at the bigger picture (but not
too big) of the overall cost to the U.S. given certain assumptions
about the cost of future electricity generation capabilities and
the cost of interest on a deficit balance of trade, etc. you can
make an overall transition to electric vehicles look great
|economically|.  My point is that with such complex issues
no one really knows whether such a transition will result in an
overall betterment of peoples lives. 

Gary- I'm sure you disagree with this
since you seem to think everyone who doesn't agree %100 with you is a
"victim" of some sort of faulty thought process.  This may be true
but do you have to be so undiplomatic about it, especially when
you don't post your e-mail address for undiplomatic responses.

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:38:05 GMT

In article <Dec11.232412.63015@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu writes:

>|> of the car.  This savings would be spread over years in the future,
>|> while the higher price of the car would have to be paid up front.

> Bingo.  So lets raise the price of gas to $10/gal and it will
> then be economical for us all to drive electric cars. ;?)


The frightening thing is, some people might actually find this
to be sound reasoning...

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 09:45:17 GMT

In article <1gmp3mINNhpi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>Item 3---People won't buy passive solar homes because they are
>ugly.
>
>However, I would substitute the word ==non conformist== rather
>than ugly.  There is always that perennial fear in terms of
>real estate value: if the owners want to sell some day, will
>the home be too odd in appearance to keep up with r.e. value,
>and will the neighbors worry about having such a house on
>their block, etc. etc.

Also, I would have to add that if the existing solar technology in that 
house happens to be phased out, you've got a several hundred thousand 
dollar "experiment" on your hands. People buy houses for security, and
don't want to have to rebuild it 10-15 years down the line.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Organization: The University of Iowa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:26:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.122113.7835@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
>Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
>Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:21:13 GMT
>In article <7520009@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:
>
>> I just read a book written by the Hawkweed Group, a solar architectural
>> firm from Wisconsin.  They make a claim that a passive solar house
>> can be built just as cheaply (or even cheaper) than a conventional house,
>> and that over 90% of the heating requirements of the house will be provided
>> by the sun.
>
>
>I suspect the trick here is the 90% figure.  I bet what they actually
>show is that the auxiliary heating requirements can be reduced 90%
>relative to a (then) conventional house.
>
>This isn't all that hard to do -- it's called "superinsulation".
>Basically, it means fewer and better windows, thicker insulation, and
>careful attention to achieving air tightness.  If the insulation is
>good enough, the house does not need a central heating system (heat
>from appliances and bodies does the trick); this can offset much or
>all of the cost of the extra insulation.
>
>Calling this "passive solar" is really a lie, though, since the
>technique works almost as well even in total darkness.  It's just
>conservation.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
I live in what is called a "passive solar house" that looks like any other
ranch style house. It is very well insulated and has low energy bills for
both heating and cooling. On a clear day during the winter the energy
consumption is low relative to a cloudy day with the same outside 
temperature. I doubt that the savings due to passive solar amount to 25%. 

	John Neff
 
Xref: sparky sci.energy:6183 talk.environment:5085
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: UN Convenes Special Meeting on Nuclear Transports
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:36:26 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <1992Dec16.054346.7830@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au: ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au (Dale Smithyman) writes:
:In article <JMC.92Dec14161859@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
:>A very ingenious press release, interspersing what the IMO and IAEA
:>said with Greenpeace propaganda and lies.  For example, referring
:>to the plutonium being extracted from the used fuel elements as
:>waste is an intentional lie.
:Rather than tell us it is a lie, back up your claim.

Simple, calling the plutonium extracted from used fuel elements waste is like
calling gasoline a waste product of oil refining.  True, but misleading.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: markh@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Mark Holladay)
Subject: Tesla
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:02:07 GMT



		DISK-TURBINE ROTARY ENGINE


	Anyone out there have info on the Tesla disk-turbine rotary
engine, patent # 1,061,206 (1909)?  Does it work?  What are it's 
specs.?  Anything will be helpful.  Or is Tesla off limits?


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@=> Mark Holladay
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@=> markh@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu (internet)

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:02:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Dec13.190204.10282
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <Bz3nLG.Ew1@cs.uiuc.edu> morrison@cs.uiuc.edu (Vance Morrison) writes:
>dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec10.010041.13790@kestrel.edu> king@reasoning.com (Dick King) writes:
>
>>> But wait!  An honest electric car advocate should compare a CD=0.19 electric
>>> vehicle with a SIMILARLY STREAMLINED gas vehicle.
>
>>Someone analyzed the performance of a IC-engine powered car that would
>>incorporate all the streamlining, composites, etc.  advocated for
>>electric cars.  It would get > 100 miles per gallon.  See the most
>>recent Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference for
>>details.
>
>If this is the case (and I can believe that it is), it seems to me that
>there is plenty of room for auto makers to make 'modest' improvments
>in fuel economy (raise the average from 27 to 40) pretty easily.  After
>all, it does not take THAT many 100mpg cars to tip the raise the average
>that much.  It makes me suspicious that auto makers are overblowing the
>hardship of making fuel efficient cars.  
>
>So tell me who who should I believe?

Go *try* to *put on* a car with a CD of .19 then come back and tell
us how many you think the auto buying public would buy. You don't
so much get in a car with that kind of CD as you wear it. Look at
recumberant human powered vehicles for .19 CD.

Gary
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

MW>I think you have forgotten the cost of replacing all of those batteries
MW>every couple of years.

This applies to the present lead-acid (LA) batteries. There are new LA's
on the way that offer much longer life. And NiMH batteries will last
longer than the engines in most IC vehicles.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
                    
Xref: sparky sci.energy:6304 talk.environment:5150
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: UN Convenes Special Meeting on Nuclear Transports
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:29:58 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Followup-To: sci.energy
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

In article <1992Dec16.054346.7830@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au>, ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au (Dale Smithyman) writes:
|> In article <JMC.92Dec14161859@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
|> >A very ingenious press release, interspersing what the IMO and IAEA
|> >said with Greenpeace propaganda and lies.  For example, referring
|> >to the plutonium being extracted from the used fuel elements as
|> >waste is an intentional lie.
|> >--
|> 
|> Rather than tell us it is a lie, back up your claim. What do the processing
|> plants do? Where does the plutonium Japan is now shipping coming from? Why
|> the uproar if these plants are as safe and unpolluting as you think they are?
|> Why does England need a new plant?
|> 


Hate to spoil this, but there's only 1 company claiming the UK needs a new plant and 
that is BNFL (British Nuclear Fools Ltd)


|> >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
|> >*
|> >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
|> 
|>  All we ever seem to hear from you are knee jerk, antagonistic reactions
|>  which show how shallow your opinions really are. Explaining your comments
|>  will help to stop you from looking like a radical.
|> 
|> 			Dale (a 'moderate' greenie)
|>       
|> 
|> -- 
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Dale Smithyman		ds@scammell.ecos.tne.oz.au
|> The views expressed here are not necessarily the same as those of my employer
|> (bless his unbleached cotton socks).


Michael
Xref: sparky sci.energy:6080 talk.environment:4958
From: maxc0452@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Legene)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re:  IGNORANCE is BLISS - But EDUCATION is SEXIST
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:44:19 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services

>>>waste," said Grinspoon.  Moreover, they 'can sort out the facts'
>>>that nuclear power is far too expensive to play any meaningful role
>>>in reducing global warming."

     I believe France has reduce CO2 emissions roughly 30% in a 
couple of decades.  They use nuclear power a lot, and they actually
export electricity to nearby countries.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:40:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <Bz3nLG.Ew1@cs.uiuc.edu> morrison@cs.uiuc.edu (Vance Morrison) writes:

|If this is the case (and I can believe that it is), it seems to me that
|there is plenty of room for auto makers to make 'modest' improvments
|in fuel economy (raise the average from 27 to 40) pretty easily.  After
|all, it does not take THAT many 100mpg cars to tip the raise the average
|that much.  It makes me suspicious that auto makers are overblowing the
|hardship of making fuel efficient cars.  

First you have to find out how much such a car would cost.  The composites
that they are using are very expensive.  Also some of the tricks used to
get the wind resistance down are hard (and therefore expensive) to
mass produce.

Would you pay $50,000 for a car whose only advantage was that it got
100 mph?

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:45:25 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <7520009@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM: duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:
:I just read a book written by the Hawkweed Group, a solar architectural
:firm from Wisconsin.  They make a claim that a passive solar house
:can be built just as cheaply (or even cheaper) than a conventional house,
:and that over 90% of the heating requirements of the house will be provided
:by the sun.

Hm, a couple of years ago This Old House went back to a firm that made solar
powered homes in the 1970's during the energy crisis.  Today the firm just
axes the solar power part.  It turns out that most of the energy savings came
from tons of insulation put into the home.  Judging by efforts to insulate my
parents old home, I agree that insulation goes a long way, especially with the
older houses.  I would say that these houses are simply passive houses.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: IGNORANCE is BLISS - But EDUCATION is SEXIST
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:42:22 GMT

constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:

>>
>3. Greenpeace and its eco-cohorts have invented global warming as an
>impending disaster about to happen. What are their solutions? If they 



Er sorry? I think you will find that Greenpeace did not "invent" global
warming, there is good "hard scientific" evidence for global warming.
Rabid statments like this make you appear as a perfect example of the
people you are trying to criticise.

Greenpeace et al do carry out quite a bit of scientific research. 

Many green types are against nuclear power for quite unscientific
reasons. This does not make them any less valid, if they can be
justified. Science is not the be all and end all. It is a tool,a very
important tool. Many green types are against nuclear power because of
the cultural and political baggage it carries with it. They see that
hard scientific statements made in the past have proved to be erronious.
People have lost their faith in the nuclear establishment. And when this
establishment alters the results of experiments into renewable energy to
stop further research this fear can be justified. (see Salters Duck)
Violently slagging people off is not going to change peoples minds. In
fact it will reinforce the subconcious belief that you are an arrrogant
scientist unwilling to listen or address the concerns of others. This is
not a personal attack, but rather a generalisation of the way many
pro-nuclear scientists react to people holding views which are counter
to their own.

Personally, whether Greenpeace are right or wrong is not the issue, but
the fact that they challenge. In rebutting their challenge (if
necessary), questions should be asked as to why it is being made. To
dismiss the arguement of another as propaganda because it contradicts
your own is folly.

>4. Society, not the nuclear industry, unfortunately veers women away
>from scientific careers. To attempt to reverse this trend by providing
>basic facts is a start. How VERY un-PC of you to keep women/womyn 
>uneducated in scientific matters.

No arguement

>I hate to say it and burst your bubble, Jym, but fear of nuclear power
>_IS_ due to ignorance. How many people out there still think the plant
>down the road is going to blow up like a bomb? Besides you, there's 
>quite a few. If educating people, rather than scaring them, is undesirable,
>then Greenpeace is performing its propaganda well. 

Also partly due to a mistrust of the people controlling it.

Chris
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: sampa@microsoft.com (Sam Patton)
Subject: electric fuel gauges
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:51:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

This may be a stupid question, but how do "fuel guages" work on electric
vehicles?

sam
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Whose afraid of Nuclear Power and why.
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:51:13 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <neff.9.724002430@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu> neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff) writes:

|>The pools at power plants were designed to be short term storage for the
|>rods until short half life waste had burned off.  The rods were then to
|>be moved to a permanent site.  The problem is that the permanent site has
|>never been built.  Every time a site is proposed, the NIMBY's come out in
|>full force, and the no safe method of disposal people start firing up
|>their contacts in the media.
|>The reason that no permanent site has been built is political, not
|>scientific.

|The proposed technical solution must be demonstrated to be free of hidden 
|flaws. Previous solutions have failed this test. There must also be a 

You propose an impossible test.  How do you determine that anything is
free of hidden flaws.  By definition, a hidden flaw is one that we
don't know about.  The only way to guarentee that something is absolutely
safe is to do an infinite amount of testing on it.  The proposed solution
must instead be proven that it is safer than the proposed alternatives.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 21:46:40 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <4664.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
>DK>But wait!  An honest electric car advocate should compare a CD=0.19 electric
>DK>vehicle with a SIMILARLY STREAMLINED gas vehicle.
>
>Name one! There aren't many proposed as a family car. Most
>"streamlined" gas cars are open on the bottom and don't produce anywhere
>near CD=0.9.
         ^^^
Misprint?

Honda Accord Coupe has a CD of about 0.31.  The Mazda RX-7 (w/o spoiler)
may be even lower.  Rough recollection of lowest "standard" car CD is
about 0.29.

Putting the family, groceries, and cross-country ski gear in a vehicle with a
CD=0.19 and heading for the mountains in the winter (with 5 inches of
new snow and a temperature of 10 deg F) would be a nice test, especially
if the trip were made at night and required a 150-mile drive.

If the temperature stayed low, the return trip might be a real hoot.

Sorry, kids, our EV just won't start until it gets warm again.....in April.
From: duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:32:50 GMT
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

/ hpfcso:sci.energy / houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) /  3:45 pm  Dec 16, 1992 /
>
>	Well,  one has to add in the fact that local building codes often
>forbid the use of certain styles of construction that would allow very cheap
>passive solar systems.  

I did talk to a (Ft Collins) city official about building codes.  It seems
the major requirement the city has is that it has to meet certain energy
(insulation) requirements.  This results in fairly restrictive limitations
on window sizes.  They don't take into account that, in this part of the
country, a double-glazed window with a southern exposure will admit more
energy than it loses.  I guess this makes sense because most people leave
their shades closed during the day so their furniture and carpet aren't
faded by the sun.

However, I suspect that community covenants and restrictions offer more
insurmountable roadblocks to passive solar construction than building codes.
Homeowners' associations seem to be much more concerned about home style
than (my) city government does.
Newsgroups: sci.energy