HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: radation)
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:04:35 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug31.032037.11996@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Zika) writes:
>  In a recent discussion with somebody who has studied publice relations,
>she mentioned an interesting observation.  The moves to shut down nuke plants,
>incinerators, waste disposal sites (both toxic _and_ non-toxic), etc.
>have something in common.  Most of the residents were not necessarily against
>nuclear power, incineration or any of the above.  Rather, the movement
>was _against_ _technology_.  Apparently, many citizens felt threatened by
>the technology...

Even the much maligned luddites distinguished between 
owners who had used the machinery to break wage agreements
and those who did not. Don't mistake a fear of those using a technology
with a fear of the technology itself. Harley Shaiken's book on the
introduction of numerically controlled machine tools into manufacturing
gives good examples of skilled workers who initially welcomed the new
machines until management made it clear that their agenda was to reduce
the wages and skills of the shop floor workers -- e.g. by locking them out
of programming. There is a widespread, and well founded, distrust of the
political and economic management of this country, and people tend to 
be distrusful of the technological fixes proposed by this management.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Farms (was: Re:
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:25:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.zxmnz2b.sss
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <viking.715624825@vincent1.iastate.edu> 
  viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>	As an idea, coat the blades with teflon or even a silicon wax and
>let centrifugal force wipe that ice right off the blades.  I've never heard
>of airplane props icing up

You clearly aren't a pilot, then....
-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
From: karty@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Student Extraordinaire)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Technology and fear of same
Summary: the worker is in no danger
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:25:45 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

As the past 200 or so years have proven technology has not eliminated jobs, it
has merely created different ones.  Sure, there is no longer any need for
certain skills, but others are in demand.  It is not the machine, or the       
computer we should fear.  No, it is the lack of knowledge the average guy has
about the technology he is using.  The more computers one has, the more 
programmers, operators, and systems people you need.  All you really need it the
education to do so.  In the last 30 years, the amount of knowledge learned in
basic schooling has increased dramatically, but it is still not enough.  

The computer is only tool and should be viewed as such.  Any one who has bought
a new PC knows how really dumb a computer can be.  They are no omniscient, they
do not have any power we do not give to them.  It is up to us not to destroy,
or regress, but to control our machines and advance.  As it says in my .plan,
When the machine circumvents the mind, civilization stops.

There are 2 choices, either do what the french shoe workers did and throw our
shoes (sabot) into the machine and sabotage them, or use the machines to make
the things society needs.  Already the 5.?? billion people need all the food
technology can grow.  The Agriculture business needs chemicals, seed, tractors,
animal feed additives etc to produce the amount of food required to feed the
5.? billion.  In technology, you cant just destroy one part of the system.  The
system depends on ALL parts funtioning or it falls apart.
--
kartyja2@ballad.cc.purdue.edu or karty@bank.ecn.purdue.edu.  
Jon Karty: Student Extraordinaire in MSE, DJ, MUDder, and all around nice guy.
"So, the Japanese built the Great Wall of China to keep the Russians out in
WWII." <--- Student in a H.S. GVMT class.    ****Bush Quayle in 92****
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: rad
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:42:56 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <1992Sep3.133819.29541@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

> Remember, you said *most* farms and ranches.  I have no doubt that
> remote farms and ranches may find wind useful.  I have never seen a
> working windmill on an eastern farm.

The golf course being built behind my house is going to use windmills
to pump irrigation water from the lower holding ponds (where it will
collect after being sprayed on the fairways) to the higher ones, and
to run air bubblers in all of the deep ponds.

We're just east of the Bull Run "mountains" (hills) and get a pretty
fair amount of wind.  

-- 
Bob Munck
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: radation)
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:23:14
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Aug30.001742.9819@nmt.edu>
	<1992Aug31.032037.11996@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu's message of 31 Aug 92 03:20:37 GMT

> In a recent discussion with somebody who has studied [public]
> relations, she mentioned an interesting observation.

=o= Just observation, and obviously not well-tested.

> The moves to shut down nuke plants, incinerators, waste
> disposal sites (both toxic _and_ non-toxic), etc. have
> something in common.  Most of the residents were not
> necessarily against nuclear power, incineration or any of
> the above.  Rather, the movement was _against_ _technology_.
> Apparently, many citizens felt threatened by the technology...

=o= Oh, that old old old old familiar tune.  No matter how many
time I hear it repeated, I can't hum along.

=o= As I've already mentioned, having spent over a decade in
these types of movements, I've not encountered *any* of this
(except from media sources who occasionally manage to find an
uninformed sound bite from a random person-in-the-street).

=o= If you're going to post broad generalizations about these
movements, you should at least make the effort to find out if
there's even a grain of truth to them.
    <_Jym_>
From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:01:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

 |Bo Curry (curry@hplred.HP.COM) wrote:
 |:  |hinz@picard.med.ge.com (Dave Hinz) :
 |:  |Bo,
 |:  |I have no desire to go wallow through and do a point-by-point analysis of
 |:  |your post. I read it once, and shudder at the thought of reading it again.
 |:  |
 |: 
 |: Apology accepted.
 |
 |Apology?  More like nausea.
 |

Well, since you withdrew or heavily qualified all your statements,
I thought I'd put a generous interpretation on it. My mistake.


 |:  |Let me, instead, repeat my point of view.  I think any further flames
 |:                    ^^^^^^
 |:  |should be sent through e-mail, as I'm sure that not alot of people
 |:  |are interested in the drivel.
 |
 |Apparently you didn't get the hint about e-mail?
 |

I see you practice what you preach. A paragon of consistency.

 |:  |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.
 |(my stuff deleted for brevity)
 |: 
 |: (BC):
 |: Ah, a clear statement of your position, if a rather liberal use of the
 |: word "repeat". If you'd posted this initially, instead of the ill-considered
 |: personal attack you actually posted, you would have saved us both a lot of
 |: grief.
 |
 |Ah, so you're saying above that I retracted my statements, but you're saying
 |here that you agree with them?  My, you're quite an inconsistant fellow.  
 |Have you ever considered a career in politics?
 |

What you said above is substantially different from what you said before.
You retracted, or heavily qualified, your (original) statements.

I didn't say I agree with you. It's just that your watered-down version
(above) is so effectively content-free that I wouldn't have bothered to
respond.

Have you considered a remedial reading course?

Bo Curry
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: rad
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:38:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <4460015@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Peter Brooks) 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.
>>
>I do.  On the bigger farms (say, west of the Mississippi), the water
>tank may be damned far from the power lines.  You still see active
>windmills in the Great Plains and further west.  I haven't driven through
>Illinois lately, where the 160 acre family farm has evolved into the
>640 acre corporate farms (as my old college roommate told me), but the
>windmills were moderately popular even there in the smaller farms.
>If nothing else, windpower is pretty cheap once you have the 
>tower built.



Remember, you said *most* farms and ranches.  I have no doubt that
remote farms and ranches may find wind useful.  I have never seen a
working windmill on an eastern farm.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:35:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.202815.9523@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) writes:

> Ahem.  I don't think so.  One prof I had claimed that  just  
> the Venzuala and Athabasca tarsands EACH have more oil than  
> ALL the worlds known oil reserves.  The Wyoming area oil  
> shales are in turn bigger yet.

An additional comment: unlike the oil shales, tar sands are being
mined today (on a relatively small scale).  Recently I was seated on a
plane next to a couple going back to northern Alberta where they
worked at the tar refinery.  This refinery converts the tar from the
Athabasca tar sands to "synthetic petroleum" plus char.  It's having
some problems competing with cheap oil, but they haven't shut it down
yet.  They have shut down the vanadium refinery there, however
(vanadium is a common contaminant of petroleum, and is often recovered
in the refinery).

By "relatively small scale" I mean small compared to conventional oil
production.  The refinery itself is substantial, with 280 MW of
cogeneration capacity.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Wind Farms 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:26:56 GMT

whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:

>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?

	When you're looking at $600/month in electrical bills due to large
drying fans on grain bins, engine block heaters, old houses with little
insulation, security lights, welders, heat lamps, heaters for water supplies
like drinkers and horse tanks, wells, plus a host of other electrical needs
that city folks rarely deal with, those wind turbines might start to look 
pretty good if a deal is cut for reduced electrical rates or a cash rent.

	BTW: $600 is an average figure.  It fluxuates, and some months have
seen well over $1000 in electrical billing, but these are rare.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: sci.energy,misc.consumers
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:23:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.173705.29798@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>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.

     Hogwash,  they 'know' about electricity because usually no one discusses 
     it like it is some sort of magic potion that will rise and bite them
     in small quantities.  They don't 'know' about radioactivity because
     certain idiots tell them that it *is* somehow different than other
     possible threats.  In this thread,  we have been treated to this
     assertion as well as the assertion that there is no lower limit to 
     a harmful 'dose'.  

>>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.

     Huh?  Your assertion was that radioactivity was different because
     we could not taste, smell ... it.  When presented with several million
     examples of non-radioactive threats with the same properties, your
     response was basically 'well, it is *still* different'.  

     Seems to me that it is only 'different' because you want it 
     to be different.

                            dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4120 sci.environment:10846
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:34:47 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug24.202457.634@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	The difference between oil CO2 and biomass CO2 is that the CO2
>from burning biomass was recently removed from the atmosphere by the
>photosynthesizing vegetation, while the CO2 from burining oil is CO2
>that has been out of the atmosphere for several million years _at
>least_ -- if it was ever in the atmosphere _at all_ (Thomas Gold
>proposes that crude oil is the remains of bacteria deep within the
>Earth's crust that feed on various gases from deep within the Earth).
>So, burning oil, and other fossil fuels, _adds_ CO2 to the atmosphere,
>while burning biomass does not.

Thomas Gold's theories are interesting, but I would point out that
oil and coal are often found together, and there is no doubt about
the origin of coal, the fossils are there for all to see. I would
also submit that burning *any* carbon source adds to the atmospheric
burden of CO2, regardless of how recently it had been previously
removed. Only the *rates* of CO2 generation and removal are significant
to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.

>	Whether global warming will necessarily be a great catastrophe
>is another question entirely.

Indeed. We might like a climate like the early Mesozoic. 

Gary

Question: What does a Texan consider bad luck? 

Answer: Having to drill through 2,000 feet of Uranium to strike oil.
From: kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia (Kershner Wyatt)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Technology and fear of same
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:18:07 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC

In article <1992Sep2.142545.28829@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> karty@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Student Extraordinaire) writes:
>computer we should fear.  No, it is the lack of knowledge the average guy has
>about the technology he is using.  The more computers one has, the more 
>programmers, operators, and systems people you need.  All you really need it the
>education to do so.  In the last 30 years, the amount of knowledge learned in
>basic schooling has increased dramatically, but it is still not enough.  

>The computer is only tool and should be viewed as such.  Any one who has bought
>a new PC knows how really dumb a computer can be.  They are no omniscient, they
>do not have any power we do not give to them.  It is up to us not to destroy,
>or regress, but to control our machines and advance.  As it says in my .plan,
>When the machine circumvents the mind, civilization stops.

I wholeheartly agree with these remarks.

I would not want to go back to the days of old (Not so old, either) when to use
these computers, I had to code my own stuff and fit it within the
confines of a very small memory (several K).  I think that is what makes
it difficult to teach my wife (happily ignorant--lucky person) how a
computer does what it does.  I am finding that I like my Excel 4.0 and
Excel 2.1d is "archaic". 7-8 years ago I though Multiplan was unbelievable.
I am glad that I know how these things work, but I'm not so sure that
everyone needs to know to use them.

A similar view can be expressed about automatic transmissions.  Personal
opinion, you are probably a more aware driver (of how your car works) if
you have learned how to drive with a manual.  Can you drive if you never
learn how to drive anything about a manual trans?  Sure.  (I'll take the 
automatic, despite hundreds of thousands of miles with a manual trans.)  

Now this tool called a computer has two modes (or maybe two "users").  You
can use the wonderful, memory sucking, applications that allow you blissful
ignorance or you can use the "traditional" method.  I use both.

The technology exists for us to use.  Irregardless of which way we do it,
life does move on.  I truly believe that computers should not be an integral
part of the young schoolchild's life, they need to be able to function with
out any power outlet nearby. :)  On the other hand, I probably won't teach
my kids how to use a slide rule.  However, there is this soft spot in my
heart for log tables and being able to manually figure out square roots.

I consfines of a very small memory (several K).  I think that is what makes
it difficult to teach my wife (happily ignorant--lucky person) how a
computer does what it does.  I am finding that I like my Excel 4.0 and
Excel 2.1d is "archaic". 7-8 years ago I though Multiplan was unbelievable.
I am glad that I know how these things work, but I'm not so sure that
everyone needs to kno
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: pgravel@nap.amoco.com (Philip L. Gravel)
Subject: Re: natural gas not allowed?
Reply-To: pgravel@nap.amoco.com (Philip L. Gravel)
Organization: Amoco Corporation
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:01:15 GMT

In article <1466300077@igc.apc.org>, tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
> From: tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray)

> i read that the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of
> 1978 decrees that no new central power station may burn
> natural gas.
> Is this true?
> Is this still in effect?

No.  In 1978, natural gas was thought to be a relatively rare commodity that 
should be preserved.  That is not true.  Natural gas is quite abundant.  
Natural gas is being promoted as an alternate fuel for electric power 
generation and automobiles.


Phil

-----
Philip L. Gravel                      Internet: pgravel@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Corporation, Chicago, IL        Phone:    (312)856-3553
----------
These opinions aren't worth the paper they're written on and
certainly don't reflect those of my employer.
From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:40:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA