Newsgroup sci.environment 104844

Kirk Johnson wrote:

> It is irrelevant if the effects of global warming are not manifesting
> themselves exactly as was originally predicted. The point is that
> atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing at a steady (and
> accelerating) pace. This *is* causing large and more frequeny dangerous                           ----??
> anomolies in our weather. That's the point.
> Kirk Johnson
Prove that *is*.
This is not the first time we have had generally more stormy weather.
There was a project in Australis to find out how múch rain you could expect
in different areas. (The problem is: They have any kind of observations
for just a few tens of years in the outback. The longest run of observations
span only 200 years.) They had a good idea. Look for how high up on the canyon
walls you could find water floated debris. If the debis was organic they
could date it an thus get an estimate of how often too.
They found out that Fitzroy River had been four times as deep as any time
recorded. That must have been a cyclone. Age estimated to 500-800 years.
(All from memory, it impressed me since I have experienced a dessert cyclone
in that area.)
IMHO all the climate models are as untrustworty as the models of material
behavior at low temperatures. There are a lot of models, and you can test
them. BUT all models just work in a small region. You have to fiddle with
constants to make them work and you can never use them any area exept the
one they are made for. Likewise with climate models. They make models and
fiddle with the constants until they fit the data on hand. Then they publish
(and are dammed since somebody have more data and those data won't fit)
their model. One big problem is interaction between air and water. The model
they use (as I last heard) is the result of fiddling with constants in
empirical formulas since no model built from principles will explain
neither momentum transfer from wind to water nor gas exchange between
water and air. ( As I understand it, they think that they have managed
to messaure how much CO2 is absorbed but the models will only explain
a fraction of that absorption. (Except speculative models of which there
are many contradictary and unverified.)
There is also the fact that a big fraction of the fossile carbon emissions
disappear somewhere unverified (I have heard a few theories but none
verified and some unverifiable at present stage of science).
That fact in itself is enough to put grave doubt on the validity of any
theory of climate.
BTW is there somebody who could verify or contradict my impression
that weather is more variable now than 30 years ago? I remember Stockholm
summer-autum 1994. Hottest 5 week ever messaured (that means about 150
years) followed by the earliest snow ever recorded (which means since
about 1500 since date of snow do not need a termometer or sophisticated
observations) and the snow stayed for 3 days. First snow usually melts
within 24 h. This is only one example of my impression but to verify
of falsify it one need access to a big meterological database.
SAG

Wind Torque Ltd (geoffh@wtl.co.nz) wrote:
: In article <52975d$afe@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
:    tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
: >This whole argument is rather silly. It is the difference in solar
: >input between poles and equator that is the basic energy source of the
: >whole climate system. It is the forcing, not the response. If we alter
: >the forcing such that it is harder for energy to escape from the poles
: >while not easier for it to arrive at the equator, we decrease rather
             ^^^^^^ sorry, I should have said "not harder"
: >than increasing the latitudinal surface temperature gradient.
: >
: >: An increase in the amplitude of the zero frequency, necessarily
: >: implies that the equatorial zone gets hotter, and the poles get
: >: colder.
: >
: >In a word, no.
: >
: But surely the latent heat of the ice caps will make a difference, won't it?  
Sure, but not necessarily enough of one.
: Just like frozen cooler pads in a chilly bin full of beer, they keep the 
: temperature pretty stable until they are completely thawed.  So in the 
: planetary case, one would expect the high latitudes to stay at a reasonably 
: constant temperature as long as we have ice caps.
: This is not to say that they are not "warming up" in at least two senses:
: a)	the continental zones with small or seasonal ice cover will 
: tend to increase their temperature in accordance with the models (though 
: counterbalanced by the reservoir of "coolth" coming from the ice caps)
: b)	the ice caps themselves are increasing their enthalpy as they thaw, 
: though not their temperature.  In fact their enthalpy might be increasing 
: faster than the tropics (as Michael Tobis says).
: But the net effect would be that the high latitudes (being the beer bottles 
: closest to the cooler pads) will keep an relatively constant temperature until 
:  the ice caps are virtually completely thawed.  (Which it is to be hoped they 
: never do!).  Meanwhile the tropical zones are warming up because of the 
: enhanced greenhouse effect and their distance from the ice caps.  Hence the 
: temperature gradient is enhanced, hence the weather systems get more active.
The sensitivity of the tropics to greenhouse warming is an interesting and
important open question. There is now some backing off from the previous
conventional wisdom that they have a much more stable temperature than
the rest of the world, due mostly to evidence from equatorial mountain
glacier cores. 
But your argument about the stabilizing effect of the ice caps has
some serious flaws.
	1) weather responds to the entire temperature structure of
the atmosphere at all altitudes, rather than just at the surface. The
upper atmosphere responds more readily to warming at the surface, increasing
vertical mixing through static instability (cold air over warm air promotes
storms, the reverse suppresses them, and the storms are the main mechanism
for vertical mixing). So the poles are much less effective at mixing 
air vertically than the tropics.
	2) Because the vertical mixing is suppressed, and the upper
atmosphere warms less at high latitudes, the increased amount of outgoing 
energy required to balance the combined incoming solar radiation, roughly
unchanged, and the increased incoming infrared, must come from a more
concentrated area near the surface, enhancing warming.
	3) The temperature is constrained over ice only NOT to go
over freezing. Much of the year it is currently much below freezing,
and there is nothing constraining it to be less so.
	4) Sea ice and continental snow cover are reduced at the edges,
causing an exacerbating albedo feedback - less ice cover means darker
surfaces and more absorbtion of incoming radiation. Also, thinner sea ice
provides less insulation for heat exchanges with the underlying ocean.
	5) Worldwide increases in the moisture content of the atmosphere
are expected - this is an important mechanism for transporting energy
from the tropics to the high latitudes - evaporation absorbs energy
at low latitudes, and condensation releases it at higher latitutdes. This
mechanism is expected to be enhanced.
	These points, except for the third, are taken from IPCC 1990
section 5.2.2.2. Section 5.2.2.3 goes on to recognize the mechanism that
you have identified. Surface temperatures over permanent ice in the summer
are expected to rise less than the global average for exactly the reason
you suggest. However, this is a relatively small region and over only
the part of the year when local dynamics prevails over large scale 
processes. Whenever the temperature over the ice caps is expected to
be substantially below freezing this effect is not felt. On the planetary
scale, it's generally expected that this is a somewhat smaller effect
than the others.
Much of this is the result of analysis of GCM output. Hugh Easton believes
that these models are basically wrong. Can he say exactly how the models
are flawed, and exactly which mechanisms are misrepresented? Or does
he join with the Polyannas in suggesting that GCMs should not be applied
to the problem, or with the confused Polyannas who simply cannot bring
themselves to believe that there is any purpose to GCMs whatever?
mt

In article <324A8D43.4D54@howellautomotive.com> Dodge Boy  writes:
>1) The US a large excess in agriculture production.
Brazil has one too, but still, it takes a lot of land to produce a gallon of 
alcohol.  But it would be a far better proposition than what it is today with 
the American government paying producers to leave land alone and henceforth 
keeping agricultural prices at a higher level.  Alcohol would take car of this 
problem, but to what extent wouldn't it interfere with the minimum prices of 
agricultural products?  
>2) The large amounts of bio degradable garbage could also be turned into alcohol.
>3) The US auto makers have already tested cars that run on both alcohol and gasoline 
>(petrol).
That is a really good and necessary proposition!
>4) The current retail price of alcohol in the US is about $1.50 to $1.60 a gallon, $.485 
>of this is a federal tax.  
With increasing demand for alcohol, this prices may go up.
Which if the government would eliminate this the price would 
>drop to just over a dollar.  Now gasoline (petrol) cost about $1.50 per gallon for 93 
>octane.  Now it takes twice as much alcohol as gasoline, so with out the tax on 
>alcohol gasoline would only have a $.50 a gallon advantage.  If a $.50 tax were put on 
>gasoline they would be equal.  This would still put the cost of gas inflation adjusted 
>below the 1950's price, but the alcohol would be a better alternative.
Two things here:  alcohol engines uses about 30-40% more for same output than 
gasoline (proportional to alcohol's 70% calories of gasoline's calories).  
That would improve your calculations. BUT, U.S. citizens wouldn't agree in a 
tax increase on the gasoline, and that is almost a sure thing.
>5) On the electic car end it can be delivered through the existing infastructure.
Electric vehicles produce emissions also.  Not in the city, but in the 
electric power plants.
>Dodge Boy
>P.S. The alcohol is corrosive to aluminum in the fuel system, that is the need for the 
>coatings, but on the manufacturing end the cost would be offset, because the need the 
>emssions devices is gone.  This would be a seirous reduction in cost to the builder.
That is good on this end, but there are other emissions coming from alcohol.  
Anyway, I believe alcohol is not a permanent solution to the emissions 
problem.  The real problem resides on the concept of internal combustion 
engines.  The solution requires a larger revolution in the transport system, 
larger than we can envision or are technologically capable today.  Think 
about perfect condutivity and other forms of electric energy production AND 
storage for a closer to zero emissions transportation system.
Cesar D'Agord
P.S. by the way, my "drunk" alcohol running Fox was great.  I miss that car 
(even if it was because it was my first brand new car ever).  The compression 
ratio of the engine was higher,  to be able to run with ethanol (10:1) than an 
equivalent gasoline engine (8:1?).  But the engine was quieter, had a little 
bit less of torque but it had a higher RPM red line (if I'm not mistaken).  It 
was fun to drive and smelled nice, specially in the mornings.  Also, it 
allowed for interesting bumper stickers:  "always drunk, the car not the 
owner" or something like that.
P.S.2  The car had a small gasoline container in the engine compartment for 
cold starts in the winter (alcohol doesn't start as easily in cold 
temperatures).  The car would automatically inject gasoline according to 
outside and engine temperatures.

>Well the Wint-o-green effect is actually called.. oh what was it called,
>something about sparking.. like scintillation (sp?) or something like
>that.  I think it's caused because the crystal structure / chemical
>bonds within the crystals are being forcibly broken -> therefore release
>of energy, in this case in the form of light.
>
>Danny Park
>dpark@tjhsst.edu
>http://www.tjhsst.edu/~dpark/
"piezoelectric effect" is voltage is produced between surfaces of certain
crystals when a mechanical stress is applied to it. 

M Sandberg wrote:
> When you add to that that
> cancer and mutations are generally down among the survivors of Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki you can start to suspect that something is wrong with the
> linear hypothesis.
It is in fact true that the survivors of Hiroshima are living longer
than
the national average of Japan. However, the lesson here is almost
certainly
not that radiation is good for people. The survivors are in fact being
followed very carefully by a range and variety of medical people. They
are
very frequently reminded of their experience, and are quite
understandably
aware of the potential consequences. This combination probably means
they
take better than average care of their health. They probably do things
like
getting enough exercise and sleep, getting a balanced diet, avoiding
smoking
and avoiding excessive drinking. Plus, since the doctors want to poke
and snoop
in their bodily cavities frequently, any medical problems that develop
are
likely caught earlier than for the average citizen.
However: They are getting more cancers than the background population.
(See _The Anti-Nuclear Game_ by Gordon Simms,  University of Ottawa
Press, 1990, page 70.) It's just that other effects, particularly
heart disease, are killing them less quickly.
(As to mutation rates, well, I'd like to see a reference.)
No, the lesson here is not that radiation is good for health, but that
these
other factors make a bigger difference (on average, note) than the
effects
of the radiation exposure.
> ( As an interesting aside: Greenpeace (If i remember correctly, it was one
> of the anti nuclear organisations) reported that exposure was underestimated
> a factor 10 in H&N.; They used that as a damaging fact against radiation.
> IF exposure was underestimated but results not that would mean that
> radiation was safer than estimated, NOT the opposite as was claimed.)
I think you've got this backwards. Various anti-nuclear groups claim
that
the dose for people at Hiroshima was less by a factor of 10 than the
usual estimate used in dose effect calculations. This is part of the
basis they use to claim that radiation is approximately 10 times as
damaging as the consensus figures used by most researchers in the field
of radiation effects. 
-- 
The preceding are my opinions alone and have nothing
whatever to do with my employer.  I don't even know what my
employer thinks. I'm not even real sure who the CEO is.
Dan Evens

Bill Clark wrote:
> 
> (By the way, the article in question was in an issue of Discover Magazine a few months back).
> 
> Dodge Boy  writes:
> 
> >1) The electric to spin the flywheel will most likely come from coal
> >fire generating stations, only shifting the emissions on elminating
> >them.
> 
> This isn't any different from using batteries as storage.
>Right. That is why we should move ahead with it until they are charged with a 
renewable source.
> 
> >2) A flywheel will have to be heavy to store kenetic energy and spin
> >very very fast.  In a crash, if it shifts, and grabbs a hold of
> >something the resulting explosion would be akin to a jet engine
> >compresser exploding.  Think about it, the is fly has all the energy for
> >a 300 mile trip already moving.  I'm sure this can be over come, but the
> >resulting weight of saftey equipment may cause a problem in range.
> 
> The article addressed this issue.  The flywheels themselves are made from a composite fiber material that is fairly light.  Also, the flywheel design has
> already taken into consideration all required safety shielding (over and above
> "likely" minimum safety requirements).  The designer of the contraption pointed
> out that, if the flywheel were to "move", as you put it, it would almost
> instantly desintigrate upon contact with the casing wall.  This would release
> quite a bit of very high-energy "dust", and keeping this from harming the
> driver is the primary purpose of the safety shielding.
> 
> -bill clark
	The problem with this is if you make the flywheel lighter you have to spin 
it faster, to store the same amount of energy.  Those are the laws of physics.  
And if on part of the flywheel doesn't destroy itself on contact with the wall, 
you have a very high speed projectile.  The amount of armor you would have to 
build around the flywheel would probably be so heavy that the car would not be 
practical.
Dodge Boy

In article <01bbab42$9afd3fa0$LocalHost@i-johnth39>,
John Theofanopoulos  wrote:
>DaveHatunen  wrote in article 
>> OK. A modest charge for an EV would be, perhaps 20 kwh. Suppose a
>> charging station can do twelve cars at once. Then it would need to draw
>> a total charge of 240 kwh. To do this in 20 minutes would require 720
>> kw of power input. Given charging inefficeincies, 800 kw would be
>> closer to the mark. That's 0.8 MEGAwatts. For only one charging station. 
>
>What's your point???  Are you saying that's too much power for the utility
>to supply???  I fail to see what you're getting at.
Obviously, a utility would be only too happy to sell more power. But to
have, say, 200 such stations in an area like southern California would
then require 160 Mw, or the output of medium-sized coal-fired power
plant. So all that's needed is to project how many cars might need
charging in a region at the same time.
Also, of course, such a charging station would normally be used in
daylight hours. Not too many people are going to go out in the evening
to get a charge for their car. This obviates the advantages of off-peak
power usage.
Please consider an actual practical design for such an operation. The
capital investment would be considerably higher than for a few pumps
and tanks, and that cost must be included in the cost of the charging.
And consider the number of such stations that would be required should
a substantial number of EVs need charging. A while back there was a
calculation that southern California would need several more nuclear
plants or their equivalent to do the charging for a substantial number
of EVs in that area.
[...]
>> How much current do those wires draw? And that current is achievable
>> because an electric welder is essentially a stepdown transformer, so
>> that welding voltage is very, very low. A conductor carrying those
>> currents at 240 volts or so would be a far different animal.
>
>If you're referring to the output side, the current peaks (with the current
>battery technology used) at 220Amps for approximately 10 minutes and then
>tapers off with the charger shutting off once the current is below a
>predetermined amount.  As for the cable, I don't know where you get your
>facts, but you have been mislead.  Current at 200v and current at 12v is
>the same current.   Thus to carry 200A@200v you would use the same gauge
>cable as you would for 200@12v.  The difference would be the thickness of
>the plastic housing, particularly when you start getting in the higher end
>of the voltage spectrum (you wouldn't want dielectric breakdown).
The current carrying capacity of a typical 220v cable is lower than a 1
volt cable of similar conductor cross-section. Current carrying
capacity of a cable is dependent on the temperature rise in the cable,
because the insulation at a higher voltage insulates the cable more
than the thin insulation of a low-voltage cable. In, current at 200v
and current at 12v aren't "the same current".
[...]
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

Pedro,
Elsevier Science published an article on an innovative technology that you
might find helpful for your leachate problem. The article, entitled
"Reverse Osmosis Module Successfully Treats Landfill Leachate," appeared
in the March/April'95 issue of "The Hazardous Waste Consultant" (Vol 13,
Iss 2, pp. 1.3-1.5). The article includes a description and cross section
of the technology, treatment results, typical operating costs, and a
contact name for further information. You can order a reprint of the
article from Glenda Smith, Elsevier Science Inc., 8773 S. Ridgeline Blvd,
Highlands Ranch, CO 80126, 303-470-1900.
Sincerely,
Robert Ryan
Elsevier Enviroinfo Research Service
RRElsevier@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/elsevierhr/index.htm

In article <3249F3D4.3D4E@itis.com>, Aardwolf   wrote:
>Bill Clark wrote:
>> quite a bit of very high-energy "dust", and keeping this from harming the
>> driver is the primary purpose of the safety shielding.
>
>Now we have to watch out for "high-energy dust"!  Isn't technology 
>wonderful? ;-)
In the postulated 16-flywheel car, each flywheel would have to have the
energy of perhaps a half-gallon of gasoline at full "charge". In a
rotor crash this would all have to be dissipated almost instantly,
probably with consequences similar to dissipating the energy of a
half-gallon of gas almost instantly. I question whether the "dust"
would not, in fact, vaporize, and cause an explosion of the casing. Of
course, the casing can be made quite heavy...
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

David Wei wrote:
> 
> In message <324852DF.216F@fc.hp.com> - Victor Johnson Tue, 24
> Sep 1996 15:30:07 -0600 writes:
> 
> :> Remember what happened when you tried to "twist" a gyroscope as a kid?
> 
> Stack another gyro that's counter-rotating onto the original gyro, that'll fix
> it.
 I don't think so.  I haven't worked the equations, but the ME in me sez
 that all that will do is:
   1. Cancel out the imparted torqe that is passed through in bearing
      friction.
   2. Cancel the lateral (opposing) Coriolis force components.
   3. Double the magnitude of the vertical (colinear and in same direction)
      Coriolis force component.
 So, you end up with twice the problem, just in a different direction.
 Two gyroscopes counter-rotating in the same plane and bound together by
 some manner of rigid frame will still resist being rotated out of that
 plane.
 Cheers,
 Victor Johnson
 --------------

Brent Lofgren  writes:
> Brent Lofgren wrote:
Haven't seen Bruce's article here yet. Some
weird propagation going on. Also lost a Evens article
I want to reply to, will try to track it down
> > Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
> > A somewhat recent article on this is Manabe and Stouffer, 1994:
> > Multiple-
> > century response of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to an increase of
> > atmospheric carbon dioxide.  J. Climate, 7, 5-23.  Fig. 4 in this paper
> > is
> > key to this discussion.  They ran three cases for 500 years each:  one
> > with
> > CO2 concentration held constant at present-day levels, two with CO2
> > increasing by 1% annually (compounded).  Of these latter two, one has
> > the
> > increase stop once CO2 is doubled (2X case), the other when it is
> > quadrupled (4X case).  In the 2X case, the Atlantic thermohaline
> > circulation decreases until some time after the CO2 has doubled (about
> > the
> > 150 year mark).  For those of you who have met Suki Manabe, picture him
> > saying, "It is dropped dead."  But it gradually recovers to approximate
> > the
> > case with present-day CO2 by 500 years.  In the 4X case, the
> > thermohaline
> > circulation drops further and stays there after the CO2 level has
> > stopped
> > increasing ("permanently dropped dead").  I'll reiterate Leonard's
> > statement that this is not the final word.
I'd consider this an example of what I was proposing.
That the response to intermediate forcing relaxed back
towards the initial state, while the larger forcing drove
a state change.
> > > [more cut]
> > > I'd really be surprised if the next century's worth of CO2 emissions
> > > could actually trigger a thermohaline disruption, but not actually
> > > shocked.  But I had the impression that the strongest effect would be on
> > > greater instability in the mid-latitude eddy-transport mechanism (ie,
> > > more disruptive storms).
> > I'm ashamed to say this, joining this thread late and trying to pass
> > myself off as at least somewhat of an expert on greenhouse warming, but
> > my brain is better at containing concepts themselves, rather than filing
> > them with their names.  Could someone give a quick rundown on Le
> > Chatelier's principle?  It sounds very familiar but I can't place it.
> First to answer my own question, quoting from Reif, Fundamentals of
> Statistical and Thermal Physics, Le Chatelier's principle:  "If a system
> is
> in a stable equilibrium, then any spontaneous change of its parameters
> must
> bring about processes which tend to restore the system to equilibrium."
> Now some more comments on Bruce's statements, which also directly relate
> to some made by Steinn and others.  It seems that the key qualifying
> words
> in the above quote are "stable" and "spontaneous."  Greenhouse gases
Hmm, this is not an exhaustive statement of LeC's principle.
> would
> produce a forced perturbation, not a spontaneous one.  The forcing
> itself
Yes, _but_ we're not changing the solar constant, we're
shifting one source term in a large dynamic system.
Remember, there are significant natural processes for
CO2 emission and corresponding sinks. Anthropic emission
is a perturbation to that dynamic equlibrium, and the
carbon sinks can and have responded.
If we were shifting the solar constant that would be
true external forcing as there is no feedback to the
suns centre from the Earth. But there is coupling back
to the other sink and source terms when anthropic perturbations
shift CO2 concentrations.
> may alter the terrain of attraction (have I coined a term?).  It may
nah, sorry. In more prosaic language you're suggesting the
potential minima can shift and there might be shift to a
new accessible minumum (chaos theory is cute, but its language
can be misleading as well as instructive),
> also
> force the system into another basin of attraction.  LC's principle does
> not say that THE SAME equilibrium will be restored.  In the example of
What it says is that for small perturbations the final equilibrium
will be near the original equilibrium (or at it if the dynamics damp).
> the Manabe and Stouffer paper, the 2X case had the thermohaline
> circulation perturbed but then restored to near the original
> equilibrium.
> The 4X case had it pushed to a different equilibrium.  At some point
> between the two, the system would have balanced on a knife edge between
> two attractors.  So, at least in their model, the potential decidedly
> exists.
Sure it exists. In the other direction lowering of CO2 would
eventually lead to an ice age and then permanent ice age as
albedo and opacity started to couple strongly.

geoffh@wtl.co.nz (Wind Torque Ltd) wrote:
>Wednesday, 25 September 1996
>SOLAR ACTION MEDIA RELEASE:
>NEW ZEALAND SHIRKING ITS GREENHOUSE GAS RESPONSIBILITIES:
>CLEAN, GREEN IMAGE AT RISK
>New Zealand is among the top three countries in the OECD for greenhouse 
>gas emissions.  But we are not even aiming to achieve our obligations 
>under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).  
I don't know why you chose to followup my post to sci.environment
with this junk - which should be in talk environemnt, and in a new thread.
The first sentence is factually incorrect. New Zealand is nowhere 
near the top three countries for greenhouse gas emissions ( either
manmade or natural ). We are near the top of the table for the rate 
of increase of emissions for countries that are required to curtail 
CO2 emissions to 1990 levels. *Big* difference. 
We currently emit around 7.6 Tonnes of energy-related CO2 
per person per year.  Consider others, USA  = 20.0, Canada = 16.4, 
Australia = 15.9, Germany =10.4, UK = 8.6,  and Japan = 7.7. 
New Zealand's manmade emissions of CO2 were expected to
grow 15.5% between 1990 and 2000, and only Australia was
higher at +16%. Consider others, Canada = +10.5, USA = + 2.7%, 
EC = + 2.5 %, and Japan =  + 2.3 %.
When those numbers are combined, where does NZ appear on
the table for current and predicted " greenhouse gas emissions "? 
Clue, nowhere near the top. If the government had managed to
convince other nations that CO2 credits should be given for
reforestation, then NZ would have been on course for a reduction.
Selective misuse of data like the above is wonderful fodder for the
fossil fuel proponents, the public can readily understand the 
difference between the 5 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by the USA,
and the 27 million tonnes of CO2 emitted by NZ. 
[ rest deleted ]
                 Bruce Hamilton

"Roger W. Faulkner"  wrote:
>Vanadium and nickle can be found at relatively high concentrations in
>certain crude oils, particularly from Venezuela.
>These metals are concentrated by the refinery processing primarily into
>residual oil (used in marine diesels and some gas turbines for peak load
>levelling), and asphalt.
I doubt very much that any gas turbine owners would use a residual
fuel that was high in vanadium. The limit in the specification for gas
turbine fuel oils ( ASTM D2880 ) is 0.5 ppm for vanadium, calcium, lead
and sodium plus potassium.  In a gas turbine, vanadium can form low 
melting compounds ( such as vanadium pentoxide MPt 691C ) or combine
with sodium or potassium to form eutectic compounds which melt
as low as 566C. The compounds ( by themselves, or in combination with
other fuel elements such as sulfur ), cause severe corrosive attack on 
the high temperture alloys used for gas turbine blades.  If the turbine
has an inlet gas temperature below 650C, the corrosion due to trace
metals is minor and controllable with additives.  
The corrosion due to vanadium compounds can be reduced by ensuring 
magnesium concentration in the fuel is 3.0 - 3.5 times the vanadium 
concentration. The magnesium combines with the vanadium to form higher 
melting point compounds that are far less corrosive. The problem is that
the addition of magnesium results in higher ash levels.  Several operators
in NZ took major financial hits when they tried to run their gas turbines
on residual fuels, and moved to distillate fuels ( gas oil, diesel ). In one
case $500,000 worth of damage occurred in the first 3 months of life
because of the high levels of unwanted elements and microparticulates
in residual fuel oil.  
>Are any of you aware of serious problems with these sources of metallic
>salt aerosols, or of studies that have examined this issue?
There is a large amount of literature on the emissions from the combustion
of residual and distillate fuels in low speed diesels and gas turbines. I
suggest getting your library to search the American Pertroleum Institute
database would be a good start.  There have also been surveys of the
concentrations of trace elements in various petroleum fuels, and several
books written on the subject.
                Bruce Hamilton

I would like ANY information on the "Carlyle Group".
They are listed as Merchant Bankers and are a Wash D.c.
based company.  PLEASE e-mail ANY info or sources.
Monte
montep@infocom.net

Victor Johnson  wrote:
>David Wei wrote:
>> In message <324852DF.216F@fc.hp.com> - Victor Johnson Tue, 24
>> Sep 1996 15:30:07 -0600 writes:
>> :> Remember what happened when you tried to "twist" a gyroscope as a kid?
>> Stack another gyro that's counter-rotating onto the original gyro, that'll fix
>> it.
> I don't think so.  I haven't worked the equations, but the ME in me sez
> that all that will do is:
>   1. Cancel out the imparted torqe that is passed through in bearing
>      friction.
>   2. Cancel the lateral (opposing) Coriolis force components.
>   3. Double the magnitude of the vertical (colinear and in same direction)
>      Coriolis force component.
> So, you end up with twice the problem, just in a different direction.
> Two gyroscopes counter-rotating in the same plane and bound together by
> some manner of rigid frame will still resist being rotated out of that
> plane.
So, given the recurring attention to the tendency of many Sport
Utility Vehicles to roll over when cornering, this may be an
advantage.  The only times I can think of that it is desirable for a
car to be rotated out of a plane is when ascending or descending a
hill.  I suspect that the front suspension of the vehicle will be
strong enough that the bumper won't dig into the road when
encountering a reasonably steep slope, and the car willl be
sufficiently massive that the front wheels would not lose contact with
the pavement at the top of a hill.  However, if this effect is at all
significant, people would have to get used to cars which handle
differently than current vehicles.
But there may be more to it than this, I really haven't thought too
hard about it.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
Craig Mohn
mohn@are.berkeley.edu 

Rregarding climate in the coming centuries with increased greenhouse
forcing:
Brent Lofgren (lofgren@glerl.noaa.gov) wrote:
: Plenty of questions are still open.  There are a number of viewpoints on
: the subject of atmospheric eddy transport.  One thing that has been
: mentioned (e.g. Held, 1993, Bulletin AMS, 74, 228-241) is that under a
: warmed climate, the same eddy will be able to transport more latent
: heat.
: To me, this would imply a reduced requirement for synoptic-scale
: activity
: but, once it is transported, that latent heat must be released, implying
: increased mesoscale activity.
I once proferred exactly this as my own estimate of what would happen,
but I was a graduate student then. I posted it to sci.geo.meteorology
and received no response at all. The morays of science suggest that
I keep my mouth shut now on this matter, lest idle speculation be mistaken
for informed opinion. However, I'd be very interested if others with
some meteorological background agreed with this prognosis. It does
seem to be in accord with observed US trends as documented by Karl et al.
Opinions, anyone? If we have to bet (and in some sense we do) should we bet 
on weaker baroclinic instability and enhanced static instability,
resulting in less synoptic organization and more mesoscale organization,
resulting in less reliable, more intense convection and arguably the
seemingly paradoxical result that both drought and flooding would be
more likely in middle latitudes? This doesn't appear among the IPCC
conclusions, and of course mesoscale organization is below the resolution
of climate GCM runs, but it isn't (to me) obviously inconsistent with them. 
mt

Cesar D'Agord wrote:
snip
> 
> Anyway, I believe alcohol is not a permanent solution to the emissions
> problem.  The real problem resides on the concept of internal combustion
> engines.  The solution requires a larger revolution in the transport system,
> larger than we can envision or are technologically capable today.  Think
> about perfect condutivity and other forms of electric energy production AND
> storage for a closer to zero emissions transportation system.
> 
> Cesar D'Agord
snip
Not "larger than we can envision or are technologically capable of
today".  Many alternatives are here today in hardware - electric
vehicles being only the most obvious given the title of this thread. 
Suppose you used a fuel-cell to drive the motor insead of batteries -
fuel cells are here today.  Another is the "external" combustion engine
- a multi-fueled stirling engine.  Or if you insist on internal
combustion- hydrogen fueled vehicles make a big dent in the emission
problem.  Many people can envision alternatives, and many have actually
produced alternatives.  Since such vehicles would be virtually no
different than today's vehicles except for their engines and fuel
systems, no large revolution in transportation is called for.  It's only
a matter of time until these alternatives are adopted on a massive
scale.
-dl

M Sandberg (MSA@SSC.SE) writes [regarding void reactivity feedback]:
[snip]
> It is the sign that is important. If it is negative that means you
> have to stabilize it actively, if it is positive it means that it
> is stable on it's own, it wont go into a runavay state. You might
> get power excursions when you cool it down but they will be small
> (relatively) burps, not runaways like Chernobyl.
[snip]
When you do a steam dump and crash-cool a BWR, there is a huge insertion
of positive reactivity.  This is only a "small (relatively) burp" if the
safety system is designed to handle this event, which it is.  This is all
I'm saying.  Chernobyl demonstrated how a large and power-dependent void
coefficient can be undesirable (albeit not the root-cause of the
explosion); CANDU's demonstrate how a reactor with a small and
power-independent void coefficient can be one of the safest and most
efficient designs in the world.  Magnitude and stability against changes
in operating condition are more important than sign. 
--
Jeremy Whitlock
cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/

Joe,
What information do you have on the recent information, that R134a is a cancer 
causing agent, or it could be that under labratory conditions rats naturaly get 
cancer.
Dodge Boy
Joe wrote:
> 
> I am a polymer chemist, and I do not work for Dupont ( the makers or
> R-134a, and R-12). It was proven (by Dupont) that it was possible for
> fluorocarbons to "destroy ozone".  But the quantity in the atmosphere and
> the rate of decay has always been questioned and has not been proven.  The
> question is the ozone hole at the pole naturally occurring, or from a
> proven combination of items. Since we have only been able to measure its
> growth for the past 30 years not much is known or proven.  Do I need to
> remind all the environmentalists that an Ice Ages occur ever few millennia
> for no apparent reasons.
> 
> The possible truth...(remember this is speculation):
> 
>         Dupont realizing the loss of profits from R-12 (they owned the patent)
> found a reason for needing to make it unsafe, replacing it with R-134a
> (which they own the patent). Both refrigerants were created around the same
> time frame, but R-134a had a problem with an economical solution for
> lubricating parts.  But no need to worry about that now, since everyone
> will pay! No choice....thanks to the EPA. We will all pay and watch as the
> ozone does its own thing.  After a number of years pass and the hole
> continues to grow I'm certain another commonly used chemical will be
> accused of ozone depletion.
> 
>         Oh, and just for another R-12 story, the EPA currently does not regulate
> household use of R-12.  This means that it is legal to discharge R-12 from
> your household A/C (to the atmosphere) and to recharge it without special
> equipment.  Yes, as a matter of fact your house's A/C does hold more than
> twice the refrigerant than your car. What a scam!
>

eneth@fcc.com (Edward J. Neth) wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 96 08:11:35 GMT, bbaka@syix.com wrote:
>> Damn the ozone, I want my air conditioning, and my 3 refridgerators that all 
>>use R-12. 
>Home refrigeration units have never used R-12.  They use R-22, which,
>while damaging to the ozone layer, is not as damaging as is R-12.
No. Most domestic fridge/freezer combinations did use CFC-12,
only the standalone freezers used R-22. Posting misinformation
only gives bbaka credibility that isn't justified. There are economic,
acceptable alternatives to CFCs for all domestic applications.
Also the largest amount of CFCs in fridges came from the CFC-11
used to blow the rigid  polyurethane foam insulation, and the
CFC  blowing agent has also been replaced.
             Bruce Hamilton

Hi, I am searching for information regarding the organization which was
founded by Chico Mendes and anything about what has happened to the cause
he fought for after his death.  Any information about Brazil's current
policies on rainforests and the environment will also be appreciated. 
Please post as news, or email to ama584@lulu.acns.nwu.edu as soon as is
possible.  Thank you.
-- 
jose cotto
Northwestern University
cotto@nwu.edu

hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <51anp6$8v5@atlas.uniserve.com>, Mark   wrote:
>>
>>We must end the madness!  Why is the world so blind?  Don't 
>>the people see that we have an unlimited source of power in 
>>Hydrogen?  The most abundant elememt in the universe, and it's
>>completely renewable.  The automoblies you are driving now
>>could be converted to burn hydrogen quite easily, and the 
>>pipelines currently carrying natural gas to most homes can
>>be used to pipe hydrogen with no modifications!  
>
>Natural gas pipelines would defintiely ahve to be modified to carry
>hydrogen; in fact, they would probably have to be replaced. 
For heaven's sake, the problem lies elsewhere !
Undoubtfully, there must be, or there will be means to accomodate
hydrogen for such purposes. But, mother nature does not provide hydrogen
on an elemental form. It does provide it as water, which is not capable
of energy release. Prior to have hydrogen able to release energy, you
must extract it from water, which process consumes a greater amount of
energy than that can be expected as later release... extracting crude
oil from the soil, and refining it, costs a lot less energy than that
later released, but, as I just explained, this is not the case for
hydrogen from water...
Knowing this, we must consider any future use of hydrogen as a mere
medium of transfer of energy. For instance, future cars may run on
hydrogen, the latter being obtained from water electrolysis... which, in
the end, would come to the same thing as running cars on electric power,
without going through the assle of batteries...
>
Bernard DEBREIL
---------------
Le Chesnay (France)
Home Page: http://www.teaser.fr/~bdebreil/
Chats possible through IRC or PowWow (in writing only)
email: bdebreil@teaser.fr

Dodge Boy  wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>> The automoblies you are driving now
>> could be converted to burn hydrogen quite easily, and the
>> pipelines currently carrying natural gas to most homes can
>> be used to pipe hydrogen with no modifications!  There would
>> be no more ecological disasters due to petroleum spills,
>> pollution would all but come to an end. (When you burn
>> hydrogen you get pure water.)
>
>
>Burn Alcohol for fuel in cars it breaks down into Water and CO2, no 
>pollutants.  It is safe, and easier to make than Hydrogen.
Yes, there would be pollutants: aldehydes for one thing, and they are
toxic and stinky.
>
>> Did I mention how safe it is?  Think about it... the lightest
>> element in the universe dissipates so quickly, that you may
>> not even suffer burns if it did ignite.
>
>On on not suffering burns "Hindenburg"
>
>Dodge Boy
Bernard DEBREIL
---------------
Le Chesnay (France)
Home Page: http://www.teaser.fr/~bdebreil/
Chats possible through IRC or PowWow (in writing only)
email: bdebreil@teaser.fr

In article <52dfs0$gdd@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb) writes:
> In article <52bf16$gqu@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, r16360@email.mot.com 
> says...
> 
> >> >Resources don't deplete suddenly, there will be decades of rising
> >> >prices. 
> >> >This  will encourage conservation (stretching supplies) and
> >> >alternatives.
> >> >But don't believe me, just look at history.  We have switched from
> >> >whale
> >> >oil to petrol, and from wood to coal. In both cases market mechanisms 
> >> >worked beautifully.
> 
> Yes. We were unable to extract sufficient renewable energy for our 
> immediate needs. We were fortunate that there was a big pile of 
> non-renewable energy available. We should recognise that this is short 
> term, and urgently apply ourselves to the problem of replacing it.
As I have said, there have been several energy switches in the past
(wood to coal, etc.), they happen on there own. Don't worry. Another
example is what happened when Minnesota's Mesabi range approached
depletion.  We were projected to run out of iron ore  . . . what
happened was that a new, nearly unlimited source of Iron (taconite)
was developed when the old ore became expensive).
What worries my is the idea that we should be "urgent" in trying
to find replacement. This usually leads to calls for expensive,
hare-brained government programs/subsidies/regulations/pontifications.
E.g Carters "Synthfuels" progragm wasted BILLIONS and accomplished
very little.
Don't worry.  Millions of people working in freedom, with a free
market, can solve this problem. IF they left alone.
> 
> >> Geopolitical stability: if no-one is dependent on oil, we don't have 
> to 
> >> fight wars about it.
> >
> >War is over 5000 years old, it pre-dates petrol.
> 
> Actually, petroleum is millions of years old. (Smirk).
> 
> But you make a serious point. Is it not worth having one less thing to 
> fight about? Oil was the major factor in the two gulf wars, a major 
> factor in the Arab-Israeli wars, and in the second world war. It even 
> played a role in the Falklands war. Thank God the Chinese and Russians 
> have got lots of their own oil. A pity the West is running out... 
The citizens on the Falklands were there primarily to raise sheep and
fish.  There might not have been a war without the British subjects
there.  The conclusion: Don't eat fish, don't wear wool!
> >> Economic: Oil is a major contributor to many countries' balance of 
> >> payments deficits.
> >
> >Oil is useful, it is worth spending money for.  I personally feel that
> >the 1000 bucks I spend on gasoline is a bargain. 
> 
> So do the Saudis.
I'm happy, the Saudis are happy.  A classic win-win situation from
free trade.
I personally think spending 20 to 100% more for organic food is silly.
But hey, its a free country, I don't care what other people buy.
> >New IC engines are almost too clean to measure.  If every car on the
> >road had met "new car" emissions, pollution problems would go away
> >in most locations.  A few % of cars make half of the pollution.
> 
> They're much better, but still produce pollution when cold. 
Good point.  Warmed up ICV's make almost no pollution.  The 
latest round of regulations will also reduce these emissions
considerably.  I don't object to pollution laws - just make
them reasonable and technology neutral.
The problem is NOT new cars anyway - if everyone in LA drove
a new car pollution would be cut drastically. The problem is
the few% of cars that make very large amounts of pollution.
> What about Diesels?
One set of laws, if Diesels can't meet them then don't allow 
them.  Again, there have been are and are MAJOR advances in
diesel emissions.
> >"Dirty" and "Noisy" are subjective, but I would suggest you go
> >drive a new Honda Civic, and let me know what you think.
> 
> I live next to a trunk road, and yes it is subjective. VERY subjective.
Again, pass noise regs, DON'T tell the automakers how to meet them.
> >> IC engines are a major contribuor to pollution.
> >
> >You are absolutely right. But we have the technology (right now)
> >to greatly reduce this pollution.  The last 20 years shows an
> >amazing decrease in IC pollution per vehicle.
> 
> I know, and I'm very happy about it.
The basis of this progress has been a relatively simple set of laws.  
Note also that cars perform better, get better mileage, handle better,
and last longer.  The system we have works, don't go mandating
technology.
> >> IC engines are very inefficient in their use of energy. (No-one seems 
> to 
> >> have mentioned fuel cells. Electric cars don't have to run  on battery 
> >> power alone).
> >
> >IC engines are not hugely efficient, less so than fuel cells appear to
> >be. Just remember that if fuel cells are H2 powered, the H2 was likely
> >made in a process of less than 100% efficiency (coal to electricity to
> >electrolosys, 25%? just a SWAG).  Also remember that fuel cell techno-
> >logy is not yet practical.  People tend to choose technologies that
> Exactly. So the market needs artificial stimulation - pump priming.
> 
> >Will oil run out in my life? I am half way home (35 yr old) so probably
> >not.  I almost wish that it would, just so we could see the economy
> >evolving to new technologies. Well, maybe not - we could repeat
> >President Carter's "Synth Fuels" disaster, where BILLIONS were wasted
> >on non competitive plants to reduce our reliance on oil.
> 
> I have just consulted my crystal ball, and it will happen on July 4th, 
> 2076. So you will be ok, but your grandchildren will be overrun by 
> marauding Danes in windmill powered tanks. (We'll be ok, we'll be too 
> busy fighting the French over... we'll think of something.
The Canadians will take us over long before that.  World's longest
undefended border = huge mistake !!
> 
> >Capitalism works, last time I checked.
> 
> Capitalism needs a helping hand from Government. History is littered with 
> examples. 
> 
> Space
Yes, this is not a money making venture.  We can go to the moon,
but not cheaply. Cars must be affordable.
> Commercial aircraft (I omit military aircraft, they're too obvious)
The DC-3 was the most successful airliner of all time,
totally privately developed.  Yes, military contracts
help aircraft makers, but they hurt them too, by encouraging
inefficiency. The British and French lag in market share for
airliners, and they were more heavily subsidized for years.
> Computers
IMO this industry would have developed anyway. At any
rate it is now civilian driven.  At any rate, the
government never forced any technology on computer
buyers.  Imagine if 10% of the machines sold were required
to be TRS-80's, under the excuse of promoting technology.
> Nuclear power
Part of the current problem.  
> Ship canals
Along with roads, probably better privatized to some
extent.  In some cases these are natural monopolies.
Cars are not.
> Catalytic converters, Unleaded petrol
Catalytic converters are not mandated. If you could make
a vehicle that would pass emissions without them, you
could make it.  This was simply the best technology
we have found so far (ICV + cats).
Unleaded petrol is a case of what goes into the
car comes out.  Mandating lead content is essentially
mandating lead emissions.
> Roads (the arteries of todays free market)
See canals.
> Telecommunications
Better off with less government, IMO.  
> Medicine
??
> Clean water
Some sort of regulation needed here, as pollution
is an externality.  Again, thankfully, the government
does not mandate specific treatment technologies.
If you want to the result of an industrial economy
look at eastern europe under central-planning.  Much 
lower living standards AND much worse pollution AND
more dangerous products.  
Later,
Andrew