HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: Anti-US feelings
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:00:16 GMT

>>>  Yellow Rain usage in Afghanistan and SE Asia.
>> That was not at all clear.  The US Government was unable to prove
>> their case in Afghanistan.
> When certain KGB files were opened they had found that they had used it.

I think we all agree that the Yellow Rain was bad, both for the
environment and for people.  I just don't see how Greenpeace could
have done anything about it.

>>>  Eastern Europe, esp. Romania and Hungary and their garbage problems
>>Not true.  They *did* protest there.  The protests just didn't make it
>>into the US media.
>  Fair enough, when and where?? On the Danube?? 

I am sorry that I did not keep the articles.  If I had more time on my
hands I would mail a letter to Greenpeace asking for a reprint.

>>>  It seems that Greenpeace only cares about Capitalistic countries'
>>>  eco-faults.
>>Within their limited budget Greenpeace investigates and protests (as
>>appropriate) the countries they have access to.  You complain because
>>they do not do the near impossible: invade a hostile country.
>  Why can't Greenpeace lobby the UN? Why can't they make statements
> regarding other countries (of which sometimes they do)?

That is a good question.  I don't know.  I wonder if they have thought
of it.

>  The point wasn't energy conservation it was spending $$$$$ on
>  research and development. We are trying to help yet people, esp.
>  Greenpeace and Sierra Club, never seem to appreciate all their
>  fundings and gov't assistance.
>	Richard Dyrda                         |  "I'm your ice cream man stop

There are two things going on here.  One is the feeling of
appreciation.  The other is showing that appreciation in ways that
others [e.g. you] will recognize.  I am not sure about the first.
But it is clear from your comments that Greenpeace could do better
in showing their appreciation (if they do appreciate it.)

If I get some free time I will write to Greenpeace and bring up some
of these issues.  As is true with most organizations, Greenpeace has
many ways in which they could improve.  And the improvement I refer to
here is about doing a better job for all people, and about
communicating better so that we and they better agree about what they
*should* be doing.

I don't think Greenpeace will ever satisfy you.  But its possible that
they don't have to offend you as much as they currently do.  Fair enough?
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
      Not representing my employer.
    I need a pierced ear like I need another hole in my head.
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:36:08 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov20072859@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> The trouble with comparing recommended exposure levels is that
> no Government agency will recommend exposures that will cause
> even one cancer case in the U.S. 40 years after the exposure.
> This is quite calculable for plutonium.  I'll bet the model
> for cyanide is that if it doesn't make you sick right away,
> then the exposure is probably harmless.  I suppose that is
> correct.

I would have to agree.  Especially regarding the cyanide - you eat a little
every day, and the body even produces very minor amounts on its own.  It's
kind of unavoidable when dealing with a lot of complex organic reactions.
If we used a different toxic substance, maybe the argument would not be
so clear.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Petroleum subsidies question. (was Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:19:06 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <PW5SB77G@cc.swarthmore.edu> dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen) writes:

|>Does anyone out there have any figures or an estimate of the amount of
|>subsidies (direct or indirect) for oil and fossil fuels?  I know that the
|>price of gasoline is <half of what it is in the rest of the industrialized
|>world. I'm convinced that the price of oil here is subsidized, but I can't
|>back that up.  The best I can say is that there should be a higher tax on
|>petroleum, but that isn't really a subsidy.

So you believe that not taxing something is the same as giving it a subsidy?
The reason European gas is so much more expensive than US gas is the taxes
on it.

-- 
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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Any info. on hydrogen power for cars??
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:10:37 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Nov23.122142.12256@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:

  >> I have seen a projection that biomass-derived hydrogen is cheaper than
  >> electrolytic hydrogen for electricity prices greater than about
  >> $.02/kWh.

  > Are you saying that hydrogen from biomass sources can be produced at 2
  > cents?  Not an insult--I just can't believe it!

I don't understand what you are asking.  Two cents per *what*?

Do understand that chemical processes for making hydrogen are
inherently more efficient than electrolytic processes, as the latter
lose a great deal of energy in waste heat when making the electricity
(and the electrolysis itself is only 70% efficient or so).  It would
make no sense, for example, to use coal or natural gas to make
electricity to separate water; the direct thermochemical approach is
more efficient.


  >> Any of these reforming processes can benefit from a source of process
  >> heat.  High temperature nuclear reactors (liquid metal or high
  >> temperature gas cooled reactors) would do nicely.  This would
  >> be a more efficient use of the reactor's thermal energy than production
  >> of electricity for conventional electrolysis.
  >
  >I suppose the same goes for solar-thermal plants, eh?
  >Or are the very high temperatures necessary?

Even lower temperature help some -- one could preheat incoming air or
fuel, for example.  However, heat from solar thermal remains much more
expensive than nuclear heat (which, in turn, is more expensive than
heat from fossil sources).  Moreover, being unsteady (both diurnally
and seasonally) it would make poor use of the capital involved in the
rest of the plant.  You want to run the gasifier around the clock, so
it can be smaller.  Biomass, at least, has the advantage of supplying
a built-in storage medium.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: hf09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Henry Christopher Frey)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: U.S. Renewable Research E
Date: 16 Nov 92 05:45:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.0f1w7xm00iV2Q2J79n
	<1466300104@igc.apc.org>
Organization: Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>From: tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray)
>Subject: Re: U.S. Renewable Research E
>Date: 15 Nov 92 01:58:00 GMT
>
>(Also, _Nuclear Canada_ omitted the clean coal technology
>demonstration program, which inhaled another $2-3 billion during
>the last few years, presumably because it was not research, but
>just handouts.)

The clean coal technology program is, strictly speaking, a
*demonstration* program.  It's purpose is to build first-of-a-kind
commercial scale systems to demonstrate the performance and economics of
advanced efficient power generation and environmental control
technologies.  It is also a cost-sharing program.  The U.S. government
is contributing around $2.5 billion.  Other co-funders (e.g., industry,
state governments) are contributing more than that amount.  Without this
program, the development and diffusion of these new technologies would
be much slower or nonexistant.  Basically, it is a risk-sharing program
with policy objectives of increasing energy efficiency, reducing
environmental impacts, and improving energy security.

It is fair to say that the clean coal program is not research in a
strict sense, but that does not mean it is a handout (as if those are
the only two options).  

Chris Frey
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hjnorris@eos.ncsu.edu (HENRY JASON NORRIS)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.engr.power
Originator: hjnorris@c40011-1216bl.ne.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: hjnorris@eos.ncsu.edu (HENRY JASON NORRIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:21:29 GMT


In article <1992Nov17.185248.78@srg.srg.af.mil>, akerson@deimos.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp) writes:
|> Newsgroups: sci.energy
|> Path: taco!rock!concert!gatech!destroyer!uunet!srg!srg!akerson
|> From: akerson@deimos.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp)
|> Subject: Re: RFD: sci.engr.power
|> Organization: Arinc Research Corp.
|> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 13:52:48 EST
|> Message-ID: <1992Nov17.185248.78@srg.srg.af.mil>
|> Sender: akerson@deimos (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp)
|> Lines: 13
|> 
|> 
|>   The charter's sample topics do not seem to differ from
|> the content of sci.energy, except to broaden it :
|> 
|> >> - applications of the following to power engineering
|> >>	  - high performance computing
|> >>	  - distributed computing
|> >>	  - artificial intelligence
|> >>	  - numerical analysis and optimization
|> >>	  - control theory
|> >> - conference announcements/call for papers, job vacancies
|> 
|>   are thos topics going to generate any traffic ? - otherwise why bother ?
|> 

	I have a great deal of interest in these topics, and know a great many 
people who have interest in this as well.  These are more specialized areas that
the 'layman' might not have an interest, but many professionals would.  So the 
point may be that this group would be more for graduate/professional topics, and
not the general-sci.energy.   I mean no offense to anyone, but that is how I see
the groups charter.
	Later.
-- 

        <hjnorris@eos.ncsu.edu>
From: robertm@cres1.anu.edu.au (Robert McArthur)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Intl. Journal Hydrogen En./1989/Sept - copy?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 05:06:18 GMT
Organization: Centre for Resource and Environment Studies, Australian National University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.59.4

Does anyone have a copy of an article in the September 1989 issue of
the journal?  It is a comprehensive review of hydrogen powered vehicles
and our library decided, in 1988, to stop getting the journal...

Does anyone have an online copy?  Otherwise, is there a friendly
photocopier/fax out there in the ether...  Otherotherwise, is the
address of the Journal handy to anyone in the ether?

Robert

-- 
Robert McArthur			Centre for Resource and Environment Studies
	     				     Australian National University
ACSNet                   rjm@arp.anu.oz.au	       ACT  Australia  2601
Pegasus|PeaceNet|EcoNet  peg:robert	     		      (06) 249 4760
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Continuing Steam-Car Discussion
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:04:57 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

> This prompts me to mention:  Trains in the US are often diesel/electric.
> Why are their no hybrid trucks?  I'd expect that the electric generator
> and motor(s) would be no larger than the present (what 15 speed?) 
> transmissions and differentials.

I was suprised just how big a 200hp electric motor IS!  And a generator of the
same power, too?!  You bet the system would be bigger.
 
> Why not an externally fired steam turbine driving a generator/motor set?
> What about steam turbine/generator technology makes it unsuited to something
> of the scale of an 18 wheel truck? 

Present steam turbine systems would be too big, too.  That, and it's tough to
match the efficiency of a modern turbodiesel.

I just wonder if some overdue innovation in boiler technology could
significantly reduce their size.  For instance--if the boiler tubes were of
smaller diameter and had MANY TINY fins, both on the outside AND the 
inside (so their inside cross-section would be something like an okra) 
THAT RIGHT THERE would be a great advance from the GM steam car.

It's all about reducing the amount of water in the system at once.  Yeah,
flash-boilers may only have a teacup of steam going at once, but it just looks
like A TEACUP IS TOO MUCH.

We're talking tablespoons, here.  

Efficiency, condenser and boiler size, and start-up time are all 
improved by reducing water volume and increasing the operating 
temperature and pressure.

We need boiler tubes with drastically more surface area per volume.  
Materials that can take the 800C steam and not corrode.  
A reliable oil-separation system (which GM got a head-start on).
Advanced computer control of water, fuel, and air pumps.

The following would be icing on the cake:

Valvetrains allowing reverse operation.
Establishing good efficiency at many power and speed ratings.

  How?  By using all cylanders for acceleration and then being able to
  turn some off for low power, high-speed cruising?
                         
    How?  By cutting off their steam?  Physically disconnecting them with
    clutches/fluid couplings?  Or each of them having their own generator?

If the above two goals could be reasonably reached, then it'd seem possible  
that we could eliminate the transmission altogether, yet maintain efficiency. 

Cars, trucks, semis and buses with no transmissions!
Trains and ships with no generators or motors!

Who wouldn't go for that?!

CM
-- 
       Craig Meyer                 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 19 Nov 1992 01:49:26 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 <1992Nov18.215046.17548@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, sherwood@space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) writes:
=Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) wrote:
=: In article <1992Nov17.205149.18798@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@zaphod.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:
=: >> 3.  Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than
=: >> water (Something that wouldn't freeze, and could act as a lubricant.)
=: > 
=: >  For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd
=: >is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/
=: >condenser and associated weight.
=: 
=: That's fine if you have LOTS of water to waste.  In case you haven't heard, the
=: state that's pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a
=: major drought.
=
=Wait a minute.  Suppose the 10 mi/gal water is accurate.  That would mean that
=water consumption would be on the order of three times gas consumption.  
=Just how much gas do you guys burn in california compared to your water use?

The question is irrelevent, as you would've realized had you taken even a
moment to think about it before posting.  The question is whether we can really
afford the ADDITIONAL water that would be required by open loop steam engines.
California has had two severe droughts in the 19 years I've lived here.  We're
currently entering the 7th year of the drought.  Last year water was RATIONED
in a number of cities.  An additional water sink is something that looks like
REALLY bad idea.

=Remember too that water dispersed into the air is likely to recondense as dew
=or rain, unlike water that goes down the drain.

So?  Given that it does condense as dew (not all that likely actually, in
Southern California for much of the year, considering that 70% relative
humidity is considered high in these parts), that dew is going to be largely in
places that:
	1)  It can't be recovered from; and
	2)  That aren't normally irrigated.
I.e., it's not going to reduce the amount of water demanded for other uses, and
it's not going to go back into the water distribution system.  For all
practical purposes, that water will be GONE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Subject: Re: steam electric hybrid ...
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:01:10 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

How about pure electric for short-range, in-town driving.  Hook
up your little trailer with its steam/electric generator for
between towns. 

dag
( Merde, hook up your little hybrid trailer to heat the passenger compartment.
 Blizzard due tonight.)
-- 
* Insert Flame Bait Here *
--
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: sgs@grebyn.com (Stephen G. Smith)
Subject: Re: Info on the GM SE-101 Steam Car
Organization: Agincourt Computing
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:27:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.223911.25528@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@carla.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:

> -Why did they use a piston steam engine instead of a geared-down turbine?
>  Gearing problems?  Cost of the turbine?

> Keith Mancus    <mancus@cheers.jsc.nasa.gov>

While I am not familiar with the GM car, the problems with using a
turbine are fairly well known.

1.  They're expensive and hard to build.  A turbine will spin at ~60,000
    RPM.  See a dynamics textbook for a description of all the amusing
    ways that high-speed rotating machinery can destroy itself.

2.  They have lousy acceleration characteristics.  Drivers want
    something to happen *now* when they hit the accelerator.  Not "just a
    few seconds to ramp up".  Nobody cares if the turbine is in an
    ocean-going ship or a power station.

3.  They have lousy torque characteristics.  Note:  so do IC engines.
    This means transmissions and suchlike.

Piston steam engines have been in use since the 1700s.  They are
mechanically simple, easy to design, and easy to build.  Acceleration
and torque characteristics are excellent (better than IC).  They don't
need a transmission.

Problems are fuel efficiency and condenser size.  Note that
historically, steam engines have either been stationary or part of
ships or locomotives, where size is not a limitation.  Also,
historically, fuel has been cheap.

Conclusion:  we need more development work.
-- 
Steve Smith                     Agincourt Computing
sgs@grebyn.com                  (301) 681 7395
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: electric car record
Date: 22 Nov 92 11:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

         ELECTRIC CAR SHATTERS WORLD DISTANCE RECORD
                450 MILES FROM S.F. TO L.A.

Joe Lastella and his converted, red 92 Geo Metro with 750 lbs. of
new  generation lead-acid batteries embarked at 7:03  AM  Sunday,
November  15,  1992 from the Rodin Sculpture Garden  at  Stanford
University,  near San Francisco, cruised south on US-101  through
Salinas, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara to Los Angeles,  then
continuing  via I-5, arrived at Wescon 92 in the Anaheim  Conven-
tion  Center,  near Los Angeles, at 9:07 PM. The  total  distance
traveled was 450.2 miles accomplished on a single battery charge.
The  trip, including 4 hours of night time driving through  heavy
L.A.  traffic,  was made on $5.00 worth of electricity using  165
Watt  hours  per mile at an average speed of 45 mph.  Stops  were
made along the way for support vehicles to refuel, and the driver
and certifying officials to eat and rest.

Certifying officials consisted of members of the Electric Automo-
bile Association, a past director of WESCON and the publisher and
editor of the Electrifying Times.

Battery Automated Transportation (B.A.T.) International, Inc.  of
Salt  Lake  City plans to produce the  unique  lead-acid  battery
design with its proprietary electrolyte in a joint venture with a
major manufacturer in the next year. The battery is projected  to
have a life of 75,000 miles and a cost at or below the DOE target
of $150/kW.

Joe Lastella, President of B.A.T., who broke his previous  record
of 406 miles on a single charge set on Sep. 12, claimed there was
enough energy left in the batteries to travel another 100 miles -
but  the object was to get to Wescon 92 where  electric  vehicles
were  enthusiastically  spotlighted with a number  of  conference
sessions and a large display of electric cars, vans and  pickups,
and a bus.

For  more information, contact B.A.T. International,  2471  South
2570 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84119, (800)255-0906, (801)977-0119
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace and nuclear power
Followup-To: talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth
Keywords: Radiation! Cancer! Bombs! Satan! Run Away! Run Away!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 04:28:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.031121.23913@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> hoeferbe@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Bernard Everett Hoefer) writes:
>	It seems to me that Greenpeace would like to see the
>countries of the world drop their nuclear power programs.  Why is
>this?  What reasons to they have to want to ban nuclear power?

The great horror writer H.P. Lovecraft once said,

"The greatest emotion of mankind is fear, and the greatest fear is
 fear of the unknown."

I suppose that if you saw something glow (from cerenkov radiation), or
produce HUGE amounts of power from very little matter, you might be
frightened if you didn't know why. Also, many people still believe that
nuclear power = nuclear medicine = food irradiation = big, nasty bombs.

That is how Greenpeace brainwa... works with the public sector.

Followups should be directed into a more "non-scientific, opinion-based"
newsgroup (yeah, right).

Tino (another environmentalist for nuclear power, and not associated with
      Richard Dyrda)
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy