HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:09:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.155039.8867@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.150707.1246@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>
>>The efficiency being used by SCEdison is available now and is cost effective.
>>Wind is cost effective now. Solar thermal is cost effective now, especially
>>when after-consumption costs are factored in.  Renewables will need to use
>>the grid to distribute power and I don't know what capacity the grid has
>>but efficiency has no such limitations.
>
>     Wind is cost-effective at the Altamont pass.  Solar thermal is marginally
>     cost-effective in the southwest deserts.  As far as the grid is concerned,
>     you don't want to produce power on the west coast to ship to the east.
>     Your cost-efficiency would nosedive.

Efficiency methods will work anywhere in the U.S. 
>
>     Neither method is likely cost-effective in Virginia for the 
>     production of large amounts of power.  And the leaf-blowers necessary
>     for the solar collectors would raise a terrible racket ...

Solar probably will be cost-effective in the east.  It isn't yet, but
quite a bit of solar energy gets through clouds so it could still work
in the winter, though it isn't the best testing ground.  Assuming you
are not joking about the leaves, PV test studies in New England have
indicated that this is not a significant problem.
>
>                                  dale bass
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul27094125@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>,<1992Jul27.181659.26261@csrd.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Jul28.172316.27035@cco.caltech.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:48:22

I remember the Red Line in Los Angeles.  The company was called
Pacific Electric.  For a brief period, when I was in the Army
at Fort MacArthur in San Pedro, taking it was very convenient
for getting from the base to my home in Pasadena.  The rest of
my time in L.A., it rarely went from where I was to where I
wanted to be.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:10084 sci.physics:11718 sci.energy:3708
From: greg@gregm.Berkeley.EDU (Greg Moritz)
Subject: Re: The Biggest Bomb on Earth
Reply-To: greg@gregm.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz)
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:46:45 GMT

houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
> .... (I think that I read that Kuwaiti crude is considered to be 
> of very high quality since it contains a high high proportion of 
> lighter hydrocarbons,  but I'm not sure of this.)

This is true - 'Light Sweet Crude.'

> Then again,  a 250-million barrel lake of oil is a pretty amazing 
> thing even if it isn't on the verge of exploding.  I'm sure that 
> someone out on the net (or maybe I'll do it if I get off my ass) 
> can relate this to,  say,  the amount of world oil consumption in 
> a month and things like that.

250-million bbls = about one month's US oil imports
                                           ^^^^^^^
                 = about five days world consumption
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
Some more calculation shows that if you had a cube-shaped container
that could hold all that oil, it would measure 379 meters on a side.
(I'm assuming here that the oil has a specific gravity of about 0.7.
if that is way off and someone knows the correct figure, I will post
a correction.)

Just for grins.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul27170433@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul28.145630.1530@vexcel.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:53:28

In article <1992Jul28.145630.1530@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Jul27170433@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >In 1979 there was a conference on what might be done in a possible
   >energy emergency, and the representative of Westinghouse said that
   >nuclear plants could be built in two years without wartime priorities
   >but also without regulatory delays.

   Most renewable technologies can be implemented in less than a year.
   While they may not have the same high capacity as nuclear plants,
   I doubt emergency capacity would need to be on the level of GW.
   Renewables may be sensitive to location but don't nuclear plants 
   need to be near large supplies of water?  
   >
   >The early turnkey nuclear plants - before the legal guerrila warfare -
   >were built in something like five years.

   I assume you support the one-step processing plan that appears likely
   to get federal approval.  Do you believe that this post-construction
   review process is not needed?  Are there no issues to examine after
   construction?  Are there no examples of falsified x-ray safety
   inspections?
   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
   >*
   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
   >
		   dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

One-step processing is necessary, because the anti-nukes have
consistently abused the two-step process, causing years of delay in
operating completed plants by repeated appeals of already decided
issues.  This has cost billions of dollars in interest costs
while the plant is waiting for an operating license.  The same
people who cause the delay, then tell us that nuclear plants take
too long and cost too much.

I believe falsified x-ray inspections can be raised at any time.
What you won't be able to do is start a whole new appeal on the
need for the plant in the first place.

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

Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.physics
From: pruss@helix.nih.gov (dmitry pruss)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:03:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.045724.2488@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.232801.905@nmt.edu:, houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>: any people who think that waste disposal is a
>: problem feel that way on a gut instinct -- there is just no safe way to
>: get rid of something that is as awful as a mixture of radioactive
>: Strontium,  Technitium,  Plutonium,  etc.
>
>Wait a minute!  Why are we disposing of substances like stronium 90 and
>plutonium?  *RECYCLE* them!  Stronium 90 makes a great heat source for
>litterally uninterruptable power supplies. 


For a burnt-out fuel, disposal and recycling are aessentially the same
thing. The dirtiest procedure of handling/separating isotope mixtures (some
of the products are volatile, and the whole stuff is very warm, which
doesn't make the task more pleasant)

Usually, spent rods are stored _before_ any processing for a considerable
time, to get *fast* istopes dacayed and heat dissipated.

However, Soviet atomic industry did tried to *RECYCLE* this heat, for
environmentalism sake, sure. They pointed out that large cities are
polluted by heat stations. Instead of burning coal/gas, they suggested to
utilize the heat coming from those used rods. The first plant was to be
constructed near Nizhny (ex-Gor'ky).

There is something attractive in this idea... :)but I feel better knowing
that they abandoned their nice plan (and ceased to exist at all :)

	D
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:01:43 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <STEINLY.92Jul27164005@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>finite injury rate for children from conventional ovens. Nader argued
>that microwaves have a higher probability of injury, McCarthy
>suggested the injury rate was in fact _lower_ - not zero.

I agree with John much more than with Victor but in this case, Victor
is correct. John did say NO ONE has been injured by microwaves, when in
fact, microwaves can injury in a way that is unique and surprising even
to the scientifically literate.

Parents who use microwaves to heat formula and do not shake the
bottle to eliminate the pockets of hot formula can cause rather
painful injuries to unsuspecting infants.

People who microwave popcorn and are not careful to avoid the
hot steam which comes out when you open the package can also receive
painful injuries.

Both of these types of injuries are unique to microwave ovens because
no other common cooking equipment heats in such an uneven fashion.

I don't think anyone in this discussion thinks that microwave
ovens are a bad thing, but it is not true that microwave ovens
are without their own special hazards.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: haralds@ifi.unit.no
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentiment
Organization: Ifi, University of Trondheim / AVH
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 14:51:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.120455.7784@vax.oxford.ac.uk> mingos@vax.oxford.ac.uk
writes:
..misc deleted..
> Please could you then post results from any of the "Scientific Whaling"
>programmes pursued by Japan or Norway? Has any useful data been uncovered
>which could not have been discovered from observation of live animals?
>And what exactly IS the intended aim of this research?
.. more deleted...
>  Or is there perhaps another reason for the research...?
>
>    Gavin

I am not good oriented about the norwegian whale program but 
I think the following is more or less correct:

Up to ca. 85 - 90 (??)  the fish populations in the Barents Sea (North of
Norway)
were going back in large numbers - faster than what was to be 
expected. The theories were many, one of them was that the exploding
seal population (Norway had been forced to stop catching seals) was
eating all the fish. This was one of the things that made people
aware that the current models of how everything worked in these
sea areas (who eat who, how much and what makes the populations
go up and down) were not good enough.

If you want to be able to harvest food from the environment
 in a sensible manner, knowledge about these kinds of things is very
important. Funding of marine research in Norway therefore has been
stepped up during the last years. The minke whale is interesting
in two ways - it is definitely not threthened by extintion (can therefore 
be caught for its meat) and it is a important  participant in the local marine
ecosystem (eats fish and whatever it comes near). 

As a part of the Scientific Whaling program minke whales are caught
in small numbers from different areas, different data is collected -
like what it has in the stomack, size, age etc. At the same time trawlers are
fishing in the same area, also with scientists on board - to se what kind of
food is avaliable. I'm not an expert on this, so I can not tell what kind of
results they are expecting. The data collected during the summer months
will take time to analyze and incorporate in existing eco-models,
but if You are interested - the results will probably be published in 3-4
months time.

Harald



Xref: sparky sci.environment:10117 sci.geo.meteorology:2593 sci.skeptic:13274
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:20:10 GMT
Organization: SPS

In article <1992Jul24.015412.23759@meteor.wisc.edu>, tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul22.180905.17900@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> 
|> >We have a government intruding in people's lives with very little
|> >justification.  We have speculation about possible man caused changes
|> >(possibly harmful, possible beneficial) in a very complex system (the
|> >world climate). 
|> >
|> >we can:
|> >a)  use precedent and restrict people's  freedoms (e.g. noone allowed to 
|> >      own a car, etc.).
|> >b)   wait until there is specific knowledge that specific actions are
|> >     causing real injuries.  At that point restrict peoples freedoms in the
|> >     least intrusive manner possible to end the injuries.
|> >
|> >Socialists choose a) and individualists choose b).
|> 
|> I would note that waiting until _specific knowledge of specific real injury_
|> in situations known to be _likely to cause harm_ is negligence.

Fine. Change the words "specific knowledge" to "specific belief with a high degree of confidence"

|> 
|> I would vigorously agree that if restrictions are necessary, they should
|> be done in the least intrusive possible manner.
|> 
|> I would quote  (from 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly' I think) :
|> "There are two kinds of people in the world, my friend. There are those
|> who divide people into two kinds and those who don't."
|> 
|> mt

-- 

Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

...the most important change which extensive government control produces 
is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.
                    Friedrich A. Von Hayek
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:27:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>go "ONWARD TO THE PLEISTOCENE!" whenever we deplete our reserves...  Both
>are 'Fossil' fuels -- one from once living materials,  the other produced
>in the cores of exploding supernovae.  (Maybe you nuclear power people should
>pick up a few slogans from Earth First!)  Either that,  or we switch to
>renewables,  in which case nuclear power,  coal power and the rest of

Ah, another environmentalist who failed high school science and thinks
the sun will last forever.


-- 
My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10267 sci.physics:11985
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:07:06 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute

In article <1992Jul29.014145.20843@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	When doing the car calculations, was it assumed that one had
>now competition as one was traveling by car?

	My understanding was that they were measured against same
time-of-day trip times over a similar route.  No freeways then
remember.  It seemed fair but I never read the study itself, just a
two-page summary as reported.

>It would be interesting
>to compare the Red Line timetables to those one works out from
>traveling in present-day LA's parking-lot freeways.

	To be fair you would need to compare against a mass transit
system that carried the same volume of people.  Hard to do.

>	And were schedules over the Red Line's history compared? I
>would not be surprised if there was actually deterioration over that
>time. ...

	My recollection is that the time comparison favored autos in
both study periods.  But my memory isn't perfect.



--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 07:03:06 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

Francis sez:

>In article <0!lm8dl@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>> I'm convinced that "econazius americanus" is came from a 
>> genetic mutation caused by simultaneously too much Jimmi Hendrix, 
>> bad acid, breathing draft card smoke and having sex in the 
>> back of a clapped out MicroBus.

>Where one shows very clearly that he knows what he's talking about.  Or
>was that a joke?  Given the tone of the rest of the article, a couple
>of smileys would have been useful.

Unfortunately that genetic mutation did not result in the inability of
said victims to operate a keyboard.  

>Given that numerous species (mastodonts, saber-toothed tigers,...) became extinct in _prehistoric_ times due to the hunting activities of a pretty sparse human population, I think it is pretty safe to assume that _any_ human activity has some environmental impact.  The whole game is to minimize that impact, within economic constraints, and to try to live with whatever consequences remain.  On the energy question, if the best answer in some circumstances is to go nuclear, so be it, but it will not be becau



>e of zero impact.  It serves nothing, and can actually do harm, to air such claims and thus give ammunition (willingly or not) to the excessively radical segment of the environmental movement.

I see the mutation DID remove the ability to use the <Return> key.  

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less pollutin
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<23978@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jul21.140032.23459@ke4zv.uucp>
	<1992Jul21.220152.19182@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:58:13

Keith Mancus includes:

	     For example, a Mooney 201, which is pretty crude
     technology today, can cruise at >180 mph and tops out around
     200 mph on 200 HP.  This is a four place airplane (thought
     I'd be the first to admit the back seats are pretty small).

Is Mr. Marcus suggesting that there has been much advance in
light plane technology since the Mooney came out?

As I recall, the Mooney Mark 21 got about 20 miles per gallon at
about 150 mph, which was very good for a usable light plane.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul24.145601.1101@vexcel.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:19:07

Dean Alaska includes:

     A significant issue here has been the need to build new
     power plants.  Peak demand is the crucial factor for this.
     The premise in my thread with C.R. Bass was that neither
     coal nor nuclear power plant construction is needed in the
     near future due to efficiency and renewables.

1. What renewables do you have in mind, and why do you believe
they are better than nuclear?

2. What is so important about energy efficiency except as costs
are reduced?  It is difficult, but the cost of keeping energy
efficiency near the top of the political agenda crowding out
other issues, is also a cost of the energy religion.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Whale rights - Science and sentimen
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul31004008@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul31.120249.16542@ugle.unit.no>
	<STEINLY.92Jul31123637@topaz.ucsc.edu>
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:49:26

It wasn't I who supplied the facts about Minke whales.  The whale
hunted by American Eskimos is the bowhead whale.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9902 sci.physics:11531 sci.energy:3607
From: bgg@pta.pyramid.com.au (Ben Golding)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Computer controlled cars (was re: high-tech highways)
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:24:01 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Sydney

In article <11008@cis.rand.org> rodger@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison) writes:
>In article <R4Q-##A@engin.umich.edu>, blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
>> The only system I can think of that currently makes all driving decisions
>> for you is mass transit.
>
>Well, as a previous poster pointed out, most of the nations commercial
>airlines fly automated systems.

But the commercial airlines are just mass transit, and a very
successful successful transit system it is too.  The posters that
continually assert that the American public doesn't like mass transit
seems to forget this.

	Ben.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are bikes really less polluting?)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul21.045724.2488@sugra.uucp> <1992Jul21.160305.6144@alw.nih.gov>
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:04:52

I read somewhere that the energy left in the fission products is about
0.5 percent of that produced by the reactor.  However, the fission
products are somewhat hard to handle, so it is customary to let the
short period, i.e. high energy emission, fission products cool before
reprocessing.  Thus most of this 0.5 percent is lost.  Under present
political conditions it would be foolish to try to salvage it, and
it might not be worthwhile to do it even when the environmentalists
come to their senses.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9863 sci.physics:11494 sci.energy:3579
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:21:15 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Jul22143340@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

     [loads of stuff deleted]

>Sheesh. Well, the sun is depleting irreplacable fuel created in the
>Big Bang ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Horrendous Space Kablooie billions of
>years ago and it will all be gone in only a a few billion years...
>Care to suggest a way by which we could conserve fissionable isotopes?

     Or any reason to think that we should?

     By the way, is this HSK terminology becoming de rigueur?

                              dale bass

--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.environment