HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: FEATURE: "Energy Without Oil" Executive Summary
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:25:03 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California
Keywords: energy environment oil press

In article <90524@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan21.105316.12424@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
...
>|Also I remember
>|reading about an interesting design in the press a year or so back where
>|there was a combined diesel electric engine. While the car was running
>|at steady speeds the electric engine did most of the work. During
>|braking the battery was charged, whilst accelerating the diesel comes
>|into play. The mpg rating claimed was around 100mpg, I think it was
>|Volkswagen that made the car. 
>
>Are these real world cars, or cars that were designed to maximize mileage
>at the expense of everything else.

The diesel/electric was a VW and was about the same as the VW Diesel
Rabbit.  It had to use an iron catalyst in the diesel fuel to meet
Calif. smog requirements (at least, I think that was this one...)
and that need to blend a catalyst with the fuel was held to be a 
reason not to move to commercialization at this time.  (i.e. it would
be Real Hard to convince the ARB that the average owner would be 
religious about blending in the catalyst; and equally hard to convince
the oil companies to blend it in all diesel fuel; and the EPA and ARB
had to be convinced it did no harm; and ...)

In other words, it was a prototype of a practical 4 seater econo-box,
not an R&D Wonderkind for demonstrating an extream optimization.
Realize that the stock VW Diesel Rabbit gets 50+ mpg.  

>I to remember reading about a 100mph car, but I don't remember who made it.
>This car was a single seater and was so streamlined the driver had to lie
>down.  It had 3 tires inflated to a very high pressure, the low contact area
>would be dangerous in wet weather.
>The engine was only a couple of horse power.
>The car ran on a closed track at a constant speed of about 20mph, ie no
>stopping and starting.

Cars like this are used to set milage records.  The last I heard, this kind
of car was getting 1000 MPG rather than 100... but they use solid tires
rather than inflated...

-- 

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: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:41:31 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>I'll be glad to discuss your "fair share" when you do your research 
>sufficiently so that you can talk with some intelligence as to where
>highway tax money comes and goes.

Well, I posted this not long ago, but I'll repeat it for John's sake:


A quick check of the 1990 Statistical Abtract of the US yields the
following data: (all numbers in millions)

1987 total receipts for highways		$65,702
1987 total disbursements for highways		 65,793

1987 gas tax reciepts, state and federal	 24,926

1987 Federal highway trust fund reciepts	 14,300
1987 Federal highway trust fund disbursements	 13,500
1987 Federal highway trust fund balance		 13,600


1987 was the most recent year for which they had numbers in all categories.

The first three lines were from two tables about no. 1020. The trust fund
numbers were from table no. 501.


What else would you like? I'm willing to walk down the hall to see if
its in the book.


--
William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com

"We trained hard,  but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;  and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization."	-Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC(?)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:43:05 GMT

In article <58992@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>>>>Second biggest understatement (paraphrased):  "Making this kind of statement
>>>>borders on the irresponsible."  (Ontario Hydro spokesman)
>>>
>>>Could Greenpeace be sued over something like this? 
>>>
>>>Tino
>>>-- 
>>
>>Probably not.  Their attorneys would plead incompetence.
>
>Since all estimates in this "field" are backup up with a lot of hand-waving
>it would be  tough to prove anything more than use of different
>assumptions.

This would be the third biggest understatement:  "Greenpeace uses different
assumptions."  At the end of the day this is usually the defence offered, while
pointing out that all risk analyses make assumptions.

There are, however, good assumptions and bad assumptions.  I haven't seen the
report from Greenpeace's consultants, but I would guess they've piled one on
top of the other a series of natural and man-made catastrophes, all assumed 
to happen simultaneously.  They would also have to make some pretty 
pessimistic assumptions about the ability of reactor containment to survive
these events.  As far as I can see this is the only way to come up with the
order of magnitude that they did.

Since we've had about 200 reactor years of CANDU operation (rough estimate), 
and since (unless I'm mistaken) 12 meltdowns haven't occurred, and in fact 
*no* meltdowns have ever occurred (as defined by Greenpeace) in the 1000's
of reactor years worldwide, I'd say their assumptions are a little on the 
high side.

Ah, if only all anti-nuclear attacks were this stupid.



-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:49:57 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan25.014943.1904@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>True.  However, if you care anything at all about energy efficiency, you don't
>>use resistive heat sources.
>
>Blanket statements don't always hold ...  speaking of which, what 
>non-resistive electric blankets are you aware of? ;-)
>
>There ARE places where resistive heat continues to make sense...

Electric blankets (except, perhaps, in hospitals) don't fall into one of those
places.  Maybe an electric blanket is useful when treating someone for
hypothermia.  For any application where the person using the blanket is capable
of generating heat, other alternatives work equally well.  For moderate (i.e.,
above -20 degrees F) conditions, simple wool blankets are quite useful (you
might need to use a few of them, but they work).  For lower temperatures, a
blanket with an aluminum core works quite well.

Jus how is it that you, known, unless I'm confusing you with someone else, for
favoring energy conservation, are now advocating electric blankets in
situations where they're not required?

>Neither my HVAC unit nor my table saw have a synchronous motor.
>Nor do my clocks, come to think of it .. wonders of the 
>electronic age ...

Most electric clocks still depend on supply frequency.  If you've got a digital
clock, run it on batteries for a day and see how it does.
>>Switching
>>to DC means you've probably got to replace your refrigerator, your vacuum
>>cleaner, your television set, your stereo....
>
>Um,the original posting stated clearly that I was looking at a mixed
>mode system.  (In particular, I stated that an inverter would be
>needed for electronics, misc. electrical outlest {like for the vac}
>and the refridgerator).  

So you're going to run TWO sets of wires throughout your home, one for AC and
one for DC?  Once you've committed to the expense of having an inverter in the
first place, the cost of increasing the capacity of the unit under
consideration is relatively small.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: lizard@cats.ucsc.edu (Raul Essig)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press rele
Date: 23 Jan 1993 04:57:55 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1993Jan22.151131.11570@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>
>I like my electricity flowing reliably and without any thought on my part 
>from a clean source where experts are running things 24 hours a day.  When
>I see someone proudly heating their home by chopping the forests down and
>burning them in woodstoves and furnaces, I am not impressed.
>
>Well, that's how it seems to me anyway.

	Then maybe the green-ER solution would be to install solar water heaters
with your current "reliable" system as backup you don't have to go
COMPLETELY alternative.  I just noticed you are in Canada, so 
the solar water idea just went out the window :-).  Maybe the thing to
do then is concentrate on energy efficiency instead of quality.  For some 
people an energy source that isn't reliable 100% of the time is no kind of 
inconvenience, whereas they could have solar/wind/whatever alternative energy.
For those people that need that E when they want it, the only proper thing to
do is do one's best to conserve energy.  Think of the pollution that
would be saved if everyone on this continent had their homes properly 
insulationed, double paned glass, clean refridgerator radiators, 
clean furnace filters, efficient lighting, etc. etc.
	What I'm trying to say is if you want to cut the pollution you create
indirectly through use of electricity, you can either generate the 
energy in a way that is twice as clean, or you can cut your usage in half,
or some combination of the two.
	Maybe this is obvious, but it seems to me like the concept of energy
reduction is completely lost to most people ( with the exception of most
of the readers of this newgroup :-) ).

lizard@cats.ucsc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why in
Date: 26 Jan 93 07:47:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) 

EM>Pondering this ...  Why not just use a 120 VDC battery pack and use
EM>120 VDC for a bunch of stuff?  Lightbulbs don't care if they are
EM>AC or DC, nor do electric stoves and ovens or other resistive heat
EM>sources.  Some tools have AC/DC motors.  120 VDC was a common motor
EM>type not too long ago, so I'd expect some motors to be available
EM>for things like house fans.

   Not a bad idea, but I think that there are several objections:

1- will still need some AC as well as DC since some tools require AC, and 
it DOES make a difference to bulbs, in terms of life.

2-DC switches have arcing and sticking and contact burning problems.

3-Inverters are about 80-90 % efficient now. Also, by adding 12 VDC 
circuits you can eliminate transformers in most transistor stuff.


---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#0 . Unregistered Evaluation Copy
                                                           
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:41:21 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan25.031717.8086@hpcvca.cv.hp.com>, abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com
(Allen Brown) writes: 
>> Only the cost of construction of a small number of roads is included in gas
>> taxes.  Most road construction, road maintainance, etc. is not included,
>> and nothing is done about the environmental damage cars and trucks cause.
>> I want all those things to be included in the price of gas.
>
>I also want the cost of Desert Storm to be included in the cost of
>gas.  If we didn't have to worry about having our oil supply cut off
>we could reduce the size of the military.

And the cost of the acephalic is heard in our land!  I guess Allen's had his
head so far up his ass that he doesn't know that Iraq had both a nuclear
weapons program and a missile program.  Well, shit-for-brains (at least in your
case we know how they got there), they did.

Now, please, in the knee-jerk response you're sure to give, which will
undoubtedly be based on the premise "But we gave Iraq the means to embark on
such programs only because they're sitting on oil fields," tell us why, if
that's the case, we support Israel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 10:52:41 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <59065@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>I take it, then, that Greenhype, true to form, neglected to mention the
>>time-frame appropriate to their estimate.
>
>Tell me, Carl, do you divine the contents of Greenpeace reports by staring
>at the entrails of a VAX? Do you have some other basis, other than reading
>the report, of course, for your assumption?

No, Yackadamn, I base it on experience with GreenHype press releases and with
my experience with, in this case, Jeremy's past postings.

>>For the innumerates like Jym Dyer among you, if I get to pick the timeframe, I
>
>Voltaire or Diderot pointed out some time ago that the ignorance of a
>person who has read *one* book far exceeds that of someone who has read
>none. Similarly, for those who confuse their mastery of elementary
>mathematics with "numeracy".

And, we can then compare that with your technophobic ravings, right,
Yackadamn??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Air Pollution in Denver and Federal Air Qual Regs (was RE:
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:47:52 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <51905@seismo.CSS.GOV>, stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
|> 
|> Denver has the second smogiest air in the nation behind LA.  I don't
|> know the factors contributing to that, however.  I've never been to Denver.
|> (People have this clean image of Colorado, but Denver is smogier than
|> Pittsburg, NYC, DC, etc.)
|> 
|>
Denver's air quality has improved dramatically in the
last 10 years.  (Actually the entire front range).
You could say they are the model for high altitude air pollution
control.

Mexico City is trying to implement some of the things they have
done.

Things are still not great,  but a couple of years ago, driving
into Denver from the north, I saw a beautiful peak looming right
over the downtown.  For a few seconds I was very confused, but
then I realized it was Pikes Peak.  That was the first time in
my lifetime of living in Colorado that I had been able to see that
peak from that angle from that location.  This was primarily
due to the decrease in the air pollution.

Unfortunately the federal government is about to implement new
regulations that will cost a lot more and do very little when
there are still a few more less expensive ways to improve more.

It will still not cost all that much though.  $20 a year is not
too much to pay for cleaner air, I just wish the Feds would let
Colorado do the job in the most cost efficient manner.

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7217 talk.environment:5716
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Not Necessarily All or Nothing (was: True Costs . . .)
Followup-To: talk.environment
Date: 25 Jan 1993 10:51:27 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan13.202957.1308@inel.gov>, dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
writes:
> Maybe that is good and well where you live.  However, where I
> live, there is about three feet of snow on the ground (more on
> the way) . . .

=o= Every single day of the year?  Could not a bike be employed
on the days when there aren't three feet of snow on the ground?
I don't remember anyone suggesting an all-or-nothing deal with
bikes.  (But I will point out that that's essentially how I
live -- and have managed to live in snowy New England states.)

> Plus, at times only a big 4x4 will get you where you want to
> go and in an emergency then that big 4x4 gas guzzler people
> like you deride is literally a life-saver.

=o= True as that might be, I still don't see why one has to
hop in the 4x4 gas guzzler for a trip to the local convenience
store.  I certainly see more of them at the local Kwik-E-Mart
than in life-threatening situations.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ghorne@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Garth Horne)
Subject: Low grade heating/cooling from earth energy or groundwater
Keywords: energy groundwater earth
Organization: Environment Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:51:00 GMT

I am seeking information, contacts or leads on the above subject. Thank 
you for your consideration.  
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: Blair.Haworth@launchpad.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:26:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.234321.28329@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

[...]
>How about the several Greenpeace press releases demanding an immediate
>ban on all use of chlorine compounds.  ("You there!  Put down that salt
>shaker or we'll shoot!!")
>
>After several months of ridicule, they finally managed to obtain a 
>fractional clue, and changed it to "organochlorine compounds."

Yow!  Every shower curtain in the country, shot to hell.  I hope they'll
settle for geological disposal...
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:56:56 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <7=bs4j=@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>
>>What's rather telling is that in defense of your flame of a Greenpeace
>>report that you never read, on grounds of an error that you merely supposed
>>was in the report, you have no more rational argument than to resort to
>>personal insult that is as clumsy as your explanation of probability
>>theory.
>
>Not to divert attention from the fact that you missed a glaring error
>in his first post.  I'd have expected it of you, yack.  After all,
>armchair scientists such as yourself rarely know the actual math.

Shucks, how can a poor greenie and armchair scientist hope to argue with
technical wizards who sort of know advanced mathematics like
logarithms? Intimidating indeed. 
-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Distributed Power
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:06:42 GMT

In article <Jym.25Jan1993.0328@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>> Since, historically, central power generation has worked well,
>> and mass transit hasn't, a conservative view is that we should
>> stick with proven methods.
>
>=\= I don't quite agree with either historical premise.  I
>think the track record of central power generation shows great
>variance.  Ditto for mass transit, which works very well in
>Europe.  (And driving automobiles everywhere is very destructive
>-- hardly a "proven method.")
>    <_Jym_>


Driving automobiles is "distributed" transportation. As you remark
about distributed generation, it's qualitatively different than
the centralized approach. While neither is as efficient en masse
as central systems, qualitative factors may dictate a preference
for one over the other at a personal level. The history of power
generation and transportation in this country shows a preference
for central power generation and distributed transportation. The
former happens to match well with high en masse efficiency (energy
and economic), reliability, and (user) convienence. In the US, the 
latter also equates with higher efficiency (in user time), higher 
reliability (on user demand), and greater (user) convienence.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 
Newsgroups: sci.energy