HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.energy

Let's review our little debate so far:

My (BC) original post:
:  "[BC has] never had air conditioning in [his] car, ..."

Your (DH) original response:
:  "In other words, [BC has] been _harming_ the environment by wasting more
:   gasoline, due to the parasitic drag induced by having [his] car's windows
:   open.  
:   Ah, the misguided do-gooder.  Perhaps the worst kind."

This post makes the following claims:
  1. BC drives with windows open.
  2. Parasitic drag caused by open windows wastes more gasoline (than A/C),
     _in this particular case_.
  3. This waste of gasoline _harms_ the environment (more than A/C).
  4. BC is misguided.
  5. BC is a "do-gooder".

DH now offers the following as a "repeat" of his "view":
 |
 |1> from information that I am comfortable beleiving (SAAB engineering data
 |   manuals, for one), air conditioning takes less gasoline (in my cars' case)
 |   than open windows, to cool the car, at the speeds I,and I suspect you,
 |   drive.

This is a qualified version of claim (2) above (with continued gratuitous
assumption of claim (1)). It has been qualified to refer to a particular
vehicle under particular conditions, and is "supported" by a reference so
vague as to be meaningless. The claim about _my_ car has been withdrawn.
Suspicion is not evidence.

Since at this point I don't have much faith in your ability to interpret an
engineering manual, perhaps you should post the relevant sections so
we can judge for ourselves if they support your modified claim.

Original claims (3), (4), and (5) have been simply withdrawn. They are
replaced by additional claims:

 |2> Air conditioning is more comfortable than open windows.

Personal opinion, irrelevant to the original post. Too silly to argue with.
De gustibus non est disputandum, etc.

 |3> People who drive in hot climates, or even hot weather, need some kind of
 |   cooling for their car.

Personal opinion, unsupported by evidence. Since this "need" was the original
point at issue, it is begging the question to assume it as a premise.

 |4> Some cars are more aerodynamic than others.  If you drive something with
 |   loads of drag, open windows won't matter too much.  If you are in something
 |   that the engineers gave a damn about drag while designing, it will matter
 |   quite a bit.   

True, but without numbers doesn't support the original claims.

 | 5-7> Political BS, too silly to argue with.

Are you able to support _any one_ of your original claims _with evidence_?
If so, post the evidence. If not, please slither away.

 |: (BC): Apology accepted.
 |
 |(DH): Apology?  More like nausea.
 |
Here's a new one for the rhetoric texts: the Argument from a Weak Stomach.
"I must be right because your arguments make me sick". Opens a fascinating
new perspective on George Bush's trade mission to Japan.

Bo Curry
"Arguing with a dyslexic is like wrestling in jello".
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:25:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Sep4.162524.13853
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep4.095202.12858@phillip.edu.au> x01233@phillip.edu.au writes:
>
>In article <185gnaINN2vl@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, lizard@cats.ucsc.edu (Raul Essig) writes:
>> I do have to admit, climbing on to my own roof and installing a sheet
>> of photovoltaics sounds appealing to me, just because it puts the
>> controll of my power more into my own hands ( and those of the sun )
>> rather then the invisible others.
>
>Are these invisible others the people who produce electricity in a large
>power station, or are they those who produce the sheet of photovoltaics?
>
>Either way you are relying on others for your energy production.
>I do have a fair idea of what happens at a coal fired power station and its
>consequences, but I really have no idea what goes on at a photovoltaic
>plant...

Nasty toxic chemical reactions involving silane, flourine, chlorine, 
benzene, and nasty toxics like tellurium, beryllium, and other toxic
rare earths. All winding up in someone's drinking water in Silicon
Valley. Just another case of NIMBY. Semiconductors aren't evil, but
they aren't squeaky clean either.

Most any junior high science fair entrant can explain a steam plant,
even a nuclear heated steam plant. Many even build cute working models.
But making photovoltaics is really high tech, not a basement project.

Besides, they work off *radiation*. (Oh the horror) :-)

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:35:34 GMT

If I lived on a farm and had an acute love of the outdoors and the beauty of 
unspoiled nature, the last thing I'd want is a matrix of ugly, noisy 
wind turbines on my land, knocking down birds, spoiling my view, and generating
electricity for the city folks.

Has any study been done that looks at what incentives would be needed to get
farmers who think like this to change their mind?   Just how much money are
we talking about here?

 

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:40:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Aug26.163858.23962@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>	I also just read an article in "R&D" magazine that claims that the
>cost of wind power is about 7 cents/kWh and expects the cost to drop to
>5 cents/kWh next year...  At which point wind becomes directly competitive
>with coal without considering externalities.

I question this.  I believe the actual cost for coal is lower.

A recent issue of Power Engineering reported that the 9 powerplants
in the US with the cheapest power -- all coal fired -- produced
power at from $.0102/kWh to $.012/kWh.  The average for all US
coal plants was $.02/kWh.  These cheap plants were mostly in the
west and midwest, but that is where wind is supposed to be best
anyway.

It was not clear to me if this includes capital cost.  Let's compute
that separately, then.  The EPRI reference coal fired plant has a cost
of $1215/kW.  Experience with plants coming on line betweeb 1984 and
1988 shows that this is probably an overestimate; some came in as low
as $423/kW; but let's use the EPRI figure.  If we assume a real
interest rate of 4%, a 30 year lifespan, and a capacity factor of .75,
then the capital cost (in current dollars) contributes about
$.014/kWh.

Putting this together, we get that a well run coal plant should produce
power for around $.025/kWh.  This is half the target cost of wind.
Moreover, the power will be more predictable and therefore more valuable
to a utility.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
	
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: greg@gregm.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Greg Moritz)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Reply-To: greg@gregm.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz)
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:42:09 GMT


> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>|would put a fundimental (sic) on the largest possible RAM chip?
>|You remember that cap was widely predicted to be 128K or maybe 256K?
>|
>|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.

curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry) responds:
> Purged of drivel, the argument seems to be:
>     :        :
>  2. Alleged fact
>     That limit was estimated (by many?) to be about 256K.
>  3. Fact
>     The actual limit on RAM density is ... higher
>  Conclusion
>     Recoverable oil will last forever.
> 
> Is it just me, or do there seem to be some steps missing in this argument?

I think it *is* just you.  The conclusion is that we don't ever know the
upper limit.  The conclusion is not that the limit is infinite.

John did not state that the limit on RAM density is infinite either.
It's just higher than it is now.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4187 misc.consumers:15974
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:37:05 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

In article <1992Sep2.020605.1742@sugra.uucp>, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>
>Gee, you can't see, taste, or hear electricity either, and by the time you
>feel it its generally too late.

But people learn through various incidental shocks *first hand* the power of
electricity.  The fact that they survive these shocks with no apparent ill
effects makes them more comfortable with electricity.  The same isn't true of
radioactivity.  Yes, we're exposed to it all the time, but 99 44/100 of the
population (everyone but John DeArmond :-) has never personally sensed their
exposure to radioactivity.  Should this be cause for alarm?  Of course not.  My
point is simply that people don't *know* radioactivity like they do electricity
because of its very nature.

>Lots of hazardous chemicals look just like water, they pour just like water, and
>unless they start dissolving the container one would be hard pressed to find out
>it is not water using solely human senses.

Yeah, but enough chemicals don't taste/look/smell like water that we form
opinions about the general threat of chemicals.  Is it rational to assume that
something that appears to be water actually *is* water?  It depends on the
context.  If it's coming from the tap, it's most likely water.  If it's in a
bottle labelled 30% Hydrogen Peroxide, it's probably not.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4177 sci.environment:10960 misc.consumers:15936 talk.environment:3483
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,misc.consumers,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Followup-To: misc.consumers,talk.environment
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:16:48
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Aug28.144858.4841@pmafire.inel.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: russ@pmafire.inel.gov's message of 28 Aug 92 14:48:58 GMT

=\= This thread has inspired erroneous statements from "both"
sides.  Here are my three cents:

    (1) As far as I know, lights with radioactive elements --
    like smoke detectors with radioactive elements -- present
    no health hazard to the consumer.

    (2) The manufacturing of these products does involve
    handling of radioactive materials.  Industries that handle
    such materials have not had a great track record with
    regards to employee safety.  No such problems in this
    particular industry have come to light yet, though.

    (3) Disposal of these products remains both an environmental
    and a health problem.  As far as I know, nobody's even made
    an attempt to address this problem.

>> Notice that this thread started with someone who wanted to
>> boycott General Electric - or maybe that was the second post.

=\= I do personally boycott GE, but the problem exists with
other companies' products.  (Even if I wasn't explicitly boy-
cotting GE, I wouldn't buy their so-called "energy-saving"
products because they're so pathetically inadquate.)

>> General luddism.  Nuclear applications are new.

=\= Pro-nuke advocates are always bringing this up, but I must
say that I've never met even one anti-nuke advocate who was
actually motivated by Luddism.  Not a single one.

=\= The anti-nuclear movement has consistently and visibly
advocated "appropriate technology:"  this is not a fear of nor
an aversion to new technologies, as appropriate technology can
be old or new, "low" or "high."

=\= If you won't make the effort to find out this rather basic
fact about the anti-nuclear movement, what makes you think you
can presume to make pronouncements about the mindset of people
in that movement?

> The "fear" is real enough in some people, but it is stim-
> ulated and maintained because it is useful - - - useful for
> political, organizational, and financial reasons.

=\= And who would you say has reaped these benefits from this
fear?  I can think of one or two melodramatic authors and one
sleazy manufacturer of "ecological" incandescent lights, but
that's about it.

=\= I've been in anti-nuclear groups since the days of the
Clamshell Alliance, and I can't think of anyone who's used the
issue to get money and power.  When we did manage to get some
power (always from the grassroots), it went into things such
as voter initiatives (back to the grassroots).
    <_Jym_>
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4119 sci.environment:10845
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:22:53 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug24.184618.29599@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>In article <josef.714665033@uranium>, Josef Moellers <mollers.pad@sni.de> writes:
>> In <1992Aug23.094218.19668@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> >Oil is just stored biomass, biomass is just stored solar energy, solar
>> >energy is just nuclear energy, why not just cut out the middlemen?
> 
>> Geez, You should offer Your services to the industry!
> 
>...and biomass is just stored sunlight.  So build SPS (Solar Power Satellite)
>and you're set.  I'm sure you'll see this in 50 years or so, when it's more
>economic and less risky (i.e, can be built off the shelf without building
>a complete heavy-lift launch system first).

The economics of SPS aren't just limited by HLV technology. In fact no
one is seriously proposing to build SPS with Earth launched materials.
The major difficulty with SPS is the sheer size of the required solar
collector. To deliver one Terawatt to Earth's surface requires a collector
the diameter of the Moon. If placed at GEO height, the collectors would
span 30% of the celestial sphere. We won't even mention the microwave
arrays and Earth based rectennas required for wireless transmission of
power from space.

I'd prefer to cut out that middleman too and simply depend on 1000
1 gigawatt nuke plants on the grid right here on Earth where construction, 
operation, and maintenance are cheaper, easier, and more efficient. We
don't have to wait on HLV technology, space based materials technology,
large scale space construction technology, or anything else to start
deploying a totally nuclear energy system today. We know how, we only
lack the will.

Gary
From: sherwood@adobe.com (Geoffrey Sherwood)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Hurricane Andrew
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:26:11 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Aug26.111600.28131@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>Well, the hurricane that just did Miami and is now whacking New Orleans
>seems to have been predicted rather accurately... though only on a 
>short time scale...

Speaking of Andrew.....

One thing I have been surprised about is that virtually no coverage (other
than one 5-sec news bite I heard) has mentioned the effect of Andrew on
Turkey Point.  For those who don't know about it, it is a nuclear powerplant
7 miles EAST of Homestead (I lived in Homestead two and half years ago, and
visited just two months ago -- the pictures from there just boggle my mind.  It
is so hard to reconcile my memory of the place with the images of devastation,
but I digress).  It had to have been hit dead on just as the eye touched shore.
The report said 'very minor damage' and I think mentioned that this was antennae
and external wiring and such.  Quite a tribute to the engineers and construction
techniques regardless of how they have been reviled.  I remember CNN reporting
that the plant was shut down shortly before landfall; I don't know if that
helped.

Does anyone have any more info on Turkey Point?

Geoff Sherwood
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: junkerj@ccmail.orst.edu (Joe F. Junker)
Subject: Nortwest Industrial Energy Forum
Keywords: Industrial, Energy, Northwest, USA
Organization: College of Engineering, Oregon State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:00:23 GMT

   Following is a press release for the Northwest Industrial Energy
 Forum.  A biannual opportunity for northwest energy professionals to
 network and learn about other industrial activities in the region.
 for more information, please contact me

 Joseph F. Junker                       Phone:(503) 737-5034
 Industrial Energy Engineer             Fax:  (503) 737-3462
 Oregon State University                Email: (Internet)
 Energy Extension                              junkerj@ccmail.orst.edu
 344 Batcheller Hall
 Corvallis, Oregon  97333-2405
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  9/2/92      Northwest Energy Professionals Look At Industrial Energy Use

  By Joyce Patterson, 737-0808        SOURCE: Joseph Junker, 737-5034
                                              Greg Wheeler, 737-2515

        CORVALLIS - A one-day regional forum on industrial energy
  efficiency will be held Thursday, Nov. 12, at the Energy Resource Center
  in Tualatin (suburban Portland). It is co-sponsored by Oregon State
  University (OSU), the Washington State Energy Office, Pacific Power and
  Light, and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

        Joseph Junker, OSU Extension industrial energy specialist, said
  the Northwest Industrial Energy Forum is an opportunity for energy
  professionals to share ideas, technical information, and experiences
  through informal presentations and discussions. This is the fourth of
  such forums. They are held every six months, alternating between
  Washington and Oregon.

        Junker said the forum is for representatives of Northwest
  manufacturers, engineering companies, state energy offices, utilities,
  and BPA.

        The morning agenda will include presentations on industrial
  technology monitoring for research and energy savings verification, and
  linkage between energy savings opportunities and environmental concerns.

        The afternoon agenda will include a presentation and panel
  discussion on future energy costs and availability, a technology
  research update, and an industrial energy project case study.

        Additional information and registration materials are available
  from Junker, 737-5034. Registration fee of $30 includes lunch and break
  refreshments.
                                 -30-
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4126 sci.environment:10855
From: x01233@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:52:02 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)


In article <185gnaINN2vl@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, lizard@cats.ucsc.edu (Raul Essig) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep3.133036.25840@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>
>>Let's take a look at what the anti-nuclear movement pushes as "appropriate
>>technology".  According to Amory Lovins, "appropriate" means simple,
>>decentralized, easy-to-understand and control, small-scale, and suited to 
>>a particular end-use.  Many who follow this doctrine do so because (and I
>>know this because they've told me) they like the idea of, for example, 
>>being able to climb up onto their own roof and install a sheet of 
>>photovoltaics -- as opposed to getting power from some unseen and 
>>mysterious power plant down the road, whose operation requires hundreds of
>>people, without a single one able to run the plant all by themselves.
> 
> I do have to admit, climbing on to my own roof and installing a sheet
> of photovoltaics sounds appealing to me, just because it puts the
> controll of my power more into my own hands ( and those of the sun )
> rather then the invisible others.
> 

Are these invisible others the people who produce electricity in a large
power station, or are they those who produce the sheet of photovoltaics?

Either way you are relying on others for your energy production.
I do have a fair idea of what happens at a coal fired power station and its
consequences, but I really have no idea what goes on at a photovoltaic
plant...

Dale Stanbrough,
RMIT
Melbourne Australia
dale@phillip.edu.au
From: bn112@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Katopis)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Halogen Lights Energy Efficiency
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:19:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Is a halogen more energy than an incadescent?
is a halogen bulb more efficient than a flourescent bulb?
how do the three types of bulbs compare?
-chris
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: rad
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:43:32 GMT

In article <2819.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:

>... the fact that most farms and ranches still use
>wind pumps to obtain water from an aquifer ...

I don't believe this.  Most farms have access to the grid, and
electric pumps are easier to install and more reliable.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4180 misc.consumers:15946
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:06:05 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <l9ns6oINNmol@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu:, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
: Few of which are radioactive, since most folks don't have concentrated sources
: laying around their house...unless they have smoke detectors or compact
: flourescents.

Most foods are radioactive, as well as most people.  As is the wood in the
house, or the brick, or the water, or various old dishes, or the mantle on
a propane lamp.

: They *are* different.  You can't see, smell, taste, hear, or feel
: radioactivity.  This isn't true of most physical phenomena people deal with,
: including chemicals and electricity.  It's hardly surprising that it's treated
: differently.

Gee, you can't see, taste, or hear electricity either, and by the time you
feel it its generally too late.  Lots of hazardous chemicals look just like
water, they pour just like water, and unless they start dissolving the
container one would be hard pressed to find out it is not water using
solely human senses.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.energy