Newsgroup sci.environment 110065

Rod Adams wrote:
> 
> Will Stewart  wrote:
> 
> >Some persons here seem to think that PV panels require frequent
> >cleaning.  I would like to see some evidence (not frenetic conjecture)
> >that PV panels need more than one simple hosedown a year.
> >
> 
> Will, what kind of evidence would convince you that solar collectors
> will experience power output degradation if allowed to accumulate
> dirt, bird droppings, leaves, sediment from water, etc?
The accumulation rate is the point of issue; did you see Robert
Kleinschmidt's
(robk@hal.COM) post on the subject?
He wrote:
  "My PV panels were last washed ~7 years ago, and continue to
   work reasonably well."
> Anecdotally, I know that a large solar array was put on the roof of
> the Natatorium at the US Naval Academy during the mid 1970s, when
> there was a flurry of concern regarding energy supplies. (I will
> grant that the system was not a PV system, but a simple solar thermal
> water heater.)
> 
> The system was designed to provide a supply of warm water to heat the
> pool located under the roof.  It worked well enough during the first
> year to keep the pool temperature above 68 F, (still pretty cool in
> my book) but within 3 years had degraded due to accumulated dirt
> and water sediment to the point where it was retired in place because
> anaylsis showed that only frequent (and rather expensive) cleanings
> would be required to retain even a moderate heating efficiency.
Early solar thermal collectors had problems with corrosion in the heat
exchangers before such corrosion was well understood.  This is not
related to external accumulation of debris.
> >Concrete is *not* spread over 75 acres with Solar 1 (now Solar 2).
> >And with PV panels on roofs, no concrete is needed.
> >
> Will, I will grant that concrete is not spread over 75 acres in a thin
> layer, but I would be willing to bet that there is an awful lot of
> concrete in the foundations of the posts that hold up that vast array
> of steerable mirrors.  In fact, I think someone else posted some
> enlightening figures.
Please use such figures after they have been confirmed.  Otherwise, "an
awful lot of concrete" does not support your thesis.
> Again, you might wave off the difficulty of installing PV panels on
> roofs, but as a somewhat technically trained individual, I cannot.
I am technically trained and know several people who have installed PV
panels. 
> If you build a large collector area of very thin material, you can
> get away without reinforcements, but you put the expensive array at
> risk of being destroyed with a moderate wind.
If that were the case, then we would have heard of such cases; please
provide references to any cases that support your position.
>  If you make the array
> strong enough to withstand a wind force equal to the code requirements
> in my area (110 MPH, I believe) you will add enough weight to the roof
> to require additional structural supports. 
Any references?  How many PV installations are you aware of?  Conjecture
is fine but must be recognized as such.
> Adding structural supports
> to an existing wooden truss/plywood covered with shingles or tile roof
> is not a cheap proposition and not one that should be attempted by
> untrained individuals.
> In other words, the installation costs (even if given the array)
> of a rooftop PV system will be considerable.
Your conclusion is based upon incorrect premises.
> The best estimate that I have for the cost per kilowatt hour for
> a rooftop PV system is on the order of 25 cents USD. 
That would be correct for polycrystalline PV panels.  The thin-film
systems coming out now are lower.
> That system,
> installed on my house would not allow me to divorce from the local
> utility, since it does not provide adequate backup power in the case
> of more than a few hours of clouds at peak collection time.
Then you would need to acquire more batteries to store the extra power. 
Also, reduce your demand throught the use of energy-efficient
appliances.
> Since electricity costs about 7.2 cents per kilowatt hour here, I would
> be rather foolish to even consider installing such a system, especially
> since I think that a lot of costs are being ignored in the estimate.
This points to the certainty that your premises about installation costs
are incorrect.
Many people feel that we are foolish to pollute the air we breath with
coal-fired power plants; what are the costs to us and future generations
of such pollution and climate disruption?  I think a lot of costs are
being ignored in current electrical generation.
[...]
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> The passive solar houses of which I have seen pictures depend on the
> ability to orient the house on a site.  Doesn't this require larger
> lots than are common in even American suburbs?
No. A house can be up to 30 degrees off truth south and still attain
passive solar goals.  Since there are normally 4 sides to every house,
one side can be oriented to the south.
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.

Mike Asher wrote:
> 
> Will Stewart  wrote:
> >
> > Of course, we have rooftops that are going to waste that can be used to
> > power most residential and light commercial buildings.
>
> Three minutes with pen and paper will show you that the roof area of a
> two-story home is unsufficient to fill its power needs.
Visit http://www.ise.fhg.de/Projects/ES/ES_english.html to see a home
that is totally self sufficient using solar energy.
There are approximately 50,000 homes in the the US that are off-grid. 
Please provide your calculations and we will discuss them.  Include
energy efficient appliances in your analysis.  See
http:/www.patriot.net/~wstewart/homes.htm for a sample of energy
consumption averages.
> A 40-story
> skyscraper requires far more power, and has proportionally far less roof
> area.   Where do we put the rest of the collectors?
There are a number of strategies.  For actual photographs, see;
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/pv-tour-switzerland/tour2.html#8
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/pv-tour-switzerland/tour4.html#13
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/pv-tour-switzerland/tour4.html#13
> And please don't shift the argument.  I'm not arguing that solar power is
> infeasible in all cases.  I'm arguing that it is not "zero emissions", as
> claimed,
Please provide evidence of the emissions of solar panels.
>that it has high health risks, 
You still need to provide evidence in this regardh.
> due to its decentralized nature,
> and that it is unsufficient to fill more than a small portion of our energy
> needs.
Please present your analysis.
> Perhaps you can explain why every large solar installation ever built has
> required daily cleaning then, to operate at peak efficiency?
Which facilities require daily cleaning?  Your source of information?
>  Of course,
> you don't have to keep the surfaces clean....but dirt and other matter
> reduces the efficiency remarkably.
You have seen persons posting here describing their PV systems that
haven't been cleaned in 7 years and yet you still cling to off-the-cuff
remarks you probably now wish you hadn't made.  
If you want to have your opinions respected, present evidence to support
your theses.   You wouldn't want us to think you are a troll...
Cheers,
-- 
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free:  - J.C.
"Troll:
     A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
     post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
     generate a flurry of responses from people called 
     "billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
     Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
     misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
     strangulation.  Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
     by facts or logic."    - bashford@psnw.com

"Mike Asher"  wrote:
>Michael Turton  wrote:
>
>> 	Mike, your claim that no workers have died in nuclear plants is 
>> absurd.  There have been a large number of deaths worldwide including a
>> number in the US, beginning with the three killed at Idaho Falls in
>1960....
>
>You're off-base here.  My claim was for commercial power generation.  Idaho
>Falls is home to the US National Reactor Testing Station, a research
>facility also involved with military waste reprocessing.  A site further
>removed from commercial nuclear power would be hard to find.  By the way,
>the accident you're referring to was January 3, 1961, not 1960.    The
>incident occurred at the SL-1 *experimental* reactor (emphasis mine), and
>was a steam explosion caused by a power excursion.  Two of the three
>workers killed were active-duty Navy personnel.  
The personnel killed were US Army.   Not Navy.    This reactor was a
"prototype" of a small scale reactor designed to be very mobil.   The
reactor was a boiling water type reactor that was meant to be used for
supplying power at remote locations far from any other source. 
>
>As for "a number in the US, beginning with...", I reiterate, there have
>been no fatal accidents at commercial reactors.  The SL-1 accident is,
>according to the US DOE, the ONLY fatal accident at any type of reactor:
>commercial, military, or experimental.
>
>> Your claim also does not include the numbers who have died as a result of
>> military use of nuclear power, aboard Soviet subs and so forth.
That is the reason the military pays "hazardous duty" incentives.
>
>For good reason-- we're discussing commercial power generation. 
>Furthermore, I confined my remarks to North America, though I know of no
>fatalities in Europe or Asia.  Your objection is thus doubly inappropriate.
Also there have been a number of deaths at US nuclear power plants.
These deaths were caused by "Non-nuclear" events, meaning that the
individuals did not die because of exposure to nuclear radiation.
Keep in mind the the power generation business is very hazardous!
Fire or heat from any source, coal, oil or nuclear, generates just the
same hazards, and death is death.
The way I look at the demise of the nuclear power business is, "For
once we are actually preserving a valuable resource for a time of
need."   Strange is it not, that before we can conserve any resource
it has to be "irrationally objectionable" for us to do so.   I find
that very funny.
George Thomas
> 
>
>--
>Mike Asher
>masher@tusc.net
>
>

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>Yuri Kuchinsky wants a book by Paul Ehrlich in every hotel rooms.  Let
>me point out that the Bibles in hotel rooms are put there by the
>Gideon Society who raise the money themselves.  I doubt Kuchinsky is
>environmentally religious enough to undertake such a task.
>I might contribute an old copy of _The Population Bomb_.
For the bathroom, presumably, not the bedroom.
                              -dlj.

George Thomas  wrote:
> >was a steam explosion caused by a power excursion.  Two of the three
> >workers killed were active-duty Navy personnel.  
> 
> The personnel killed were US Army.   Not Navy. 
What is your source for this?  I have three sources: one says 2 Navy, 1
"other", another says two Navy, 1 Army, and the third says 2 Army, 1 Navy. 
In any case, it was not a commercial site.
> The way I look at the demise of the nuclear power business is, "For
> once we are actually preserving a valuable resource for a time of
> need."
Demise?  The industry is a long way from dead, George.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> 
> Somehow I would think that a member of the American Solar Energy
> Society would have access to information about how much work is
> required to maintain solar systems.
> 
> The burden of proof is on Stewart.
I note:
Somehow I would think that a man who claims we will be able to extract 
trace minerals from rock economically could come up with a way to 
minimize the work necessary to maintain a solar array.  If this is too 
much to ask, what isn't?

TL ADAMS  wrote:
> The planet is littered with the ruins of civilizations that over
> extended and exceeded their carrying capacity.  Rome is a fine example,
> improper farming was used, soil lost, fertility squandered. Forest 
> destroyed for charcol, harbours clogged with silt. Wealth was
> traded for resources, and soil and agricultural continued on that
> spiral of diminishing returns
A fairy tale.  If true, why were well-fed Romans continually attacked by
starving barbarians?   In any case, the _empire_ fell, but most of the
people remained.  Do you think the end of the Roman empire depopulated
Italy?
>  Alas, Babylon, Alas Central America, Easter Island, Iraq, England.
Hehe.  This speaks for itself.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
The citizenry should live...in socialistic communities of 
3000 or less and...consume only what they produce" 
     - Rodolph Bahro, co-founder, German Green Movement. cit. "Rio
	Reductionism", Media Watch, July 1992.

Manus J. Cooney (mjcooney@cris.com) wrote:
: You should know that the oncoming shift supervisor on arriving in the
: TMI control room correctly diagnosed the problem within a relatively
: short time(<30 minutes).  Had this been done by the operating shift at
: the time of first upset the situation would have been little known.
  You forget that by that time the operators had more information to
go on, having already been looped around discovering things the hard
way.  Many delayed alarms had finally printed out, so they had the
benefit of information that was not available to the operators when
they needed it.  The night operators had had time to figure out some
of the malfunctions by that time.  And I think they had discovered
that their pressure guage was defective by that time also.  
  But your argument is fundamentally defective.  Blaming the control
operators CERTAINLY does not prove that nuclear power is safe.  If you
say that, you are saying that a nuclear disaster can be caused by
a couple of guys screwing up.  Not a good argument for your side, Mr.
Cooney.
: The Chernobyl accident resulted from a human failure to stop a test
: program when there wasn't sufficient time.  Fear to tell the boss "I
: can't do the job".  In this case the job was to conduct a test that was
: supposed to have been  run at plant startup years before.  A test to
: prove ability to use stored energy of rotating machine for some initial
: cooling on forced shutdown without electric power - pending start of
: standby power.  A thorough analysis of conditions -  plant operating
: many, many years in safe manner coupled with a most likely attitude that
: wouldn't change anything (spend money) if the test proved anything
: different than expected because of the many years of safe operation
: should have cancelled the test.
  Wasn't the test, first and foremost, unauthorized, and also very
badly planned?  And were the operators not poorly prepared?  Was this
bad preparation not very unusual among all the tests at Chernobyl?  Why
else would that Soviet operator refuse a direct order?  Of course, he then
lost his nerve and did as he was told, at the cost of his life...
  What about the safety system that was shut off before the test?  I
don't think that was necessary to see if the rundown energy could
produce a restart.  No, I see a boss trying to justify his plant, his
job, and his status, by demonstrating how "safe" his nuclear plant
was.  Oh, he demonstrated THAT, all right.
  There was time to abort.  They could have aborted after their first
screwup, when the reactor first suffered the iodine poisoning.  But
no, the boss bullied them into continuing.  Why?  My guess is that he
knew they would report his misdeed, and that he would never have
another chance to prove how great he was, and how safe his reactor
was.  Well, we'll never forget good old what's-his-name, will we?
  And what was that I read about the reaction surge when the control
rods were pushed in?  Something about the rods having hollow tips that
displaced the water, in a positive void coefficient reactor?  Why on
earth would the rods be designed that way, or allowed to remain that
way?  In the event of an emergency, they could not be pushed in
without making things worse.  But when the reaction got too hot and
they had to abort the test, they proceeded to push them in together in
big groups!  And of course they got a big surge.  It should not have 
been a surprise.  But it was probably already too late...
  And again, you make a bad argument for nuclear safety.  Again you
are saying that a few guys screwing up can cause a nuclear disaster.
You have absolutely failed to demonstrate any intrinsic safety in
nuclear power. 
  But of course you failed; nuclear power IS NOT SAFE.  And I am not
saying that it has to be safe; I am saying that it has to be treated
with the utmost respect, lest it get out of control.  And yet we keep
hearing from people ostensibly in the nuclear industry who STILL don't
get it.
:  Incidently, what's your thought relating to the terrible air crash
: in India-yesterday. Do you want to stop all air flight? MJC 
  It is my opinion that the level of maintenance and care in the air
travel industry has been inadequate since US deregulation, and
probably even before that.  But this collision seems to have been
caused by controller error.  I could say a few things about the bad
working conditions in US control towers, and about the poor condition
of the traffic control computers in the USA at least.  I don't like
this, and if I see a thread named "Extremely safe air travel" I might
have a few words to say.  
  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net

Will Stewart  wrote:.
> 
> > >Concrete is *not* spread over 75 acres with Solar 1 (now Solar 2).
> > >And with PV panels on roofs, no concrete is needed.
> 
> Please use such figures after they have been confirmed.  Otherwise, "an
> awful lot of concrete" does not support your thesis.
Solar 1 became Solar 2 after Aug 31, 1986, when an explosion and fire
decimated the original installation.  Two technicians were badly injured.
I posted the amount of concrete used in Solar 1: just under 20,000 tons. 
Note that a 500 MW+ nuclear reactor requires about 4000 tons.  Solar 1
generated 10 MW....when the sun was shining.
Will, I never disagreed with solar power in limited applications.  If you
want to prescribe it as a panacea, however, you need to solve the problem
of power storage, among others.  
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Let's face it.  We don't want safe nuclear power plants. We want NO
nuclear power plants."
   - spokesperson for GAO, the Government Accountability Project

Ron Jeremy wrote:
> 
Careful - you're going to restore my faith.  THEN what am I going to 
do???     (Thanks!)
8^).

Steinn Sigurdsson  wrote:
>dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>> jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>> >The amount of steel required to make cars is indeed linear in the
>> >number of cars being made.  Linear relationships dominate the economy,
>> >except in a few areas like semiconductor memory which are dominated by
>> >capital costs and design costs.
>> Hogwash.  The amount of steel required to make cars declines with
>> number produced: the factories are largely made out of steel,
>> remember?  Even if this were not so, higher production would bring
>> about economies of scale in the recycling of scrap.
>
>As a first approximation, for small variations in the number
>of cars produced, the amount of steel consumed by the
>factory per year will be a linear function of the number of
>cars produced. You don't build a new factory if the number
>of cars produced varies by 10-30%, nor will such fluctutation
>help much with recycling efficiency.
Steinn if your factory weighs a million tons and produces a million
cars, that's a ton per car.  If it drops to 700,000 cars, that's 1.4
tons per car, a fairly hefty change.  
>> Linear relationships do not "dominate" the economy.  Sheesh, they are
>> entirely absent from any economy. This starts at the level of "buy
>> two, get one free" and goes clear through every function in the entire
>> joint.
>  
>> The reason linear algebra is more true to economics than calculus is
>> that it allows you to flush new sets of parameters through whole
>> matrices of arguments, to look at nearby realities. This occurs in
>> functions which are themselves anything but linear. "Linear" is a
>> misnomer for the style.
>
>If the mapping happens to be linear then you get additional
>use out of the matrices, but that's gravy.
Agreed.  
                   -dlj.

Will Stewart  wrote:
> 
> >  We've never been able to build a 1000 megawatt solar plant but
> > the ten megawatt plant "Solar One" required almost 20,000 tons of
> > concrete.
>
> References ?
"Solar Electricity: SOLAR ONE", Access to Energy, vol. 9, no. 10, 1982.
Or you can get the materials figures directly from Southern Cal Edison.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"In my own country, the UK, I like to point out that the average
Englishman's garden occupies 1/10 of an acre.  By digging down 1 meter, we
can extract six kilograms of thorium, two kilograms of uranium, and 7,000
kilograms of potassium, all of them radioactive.  In a sense, all of that
is radioactive waste, not man-made, but the residue left over when God
created the planet."
   - Walter, Lord Marshall of Goring, head of CEGB.

atanu@are.Berkeley.EDU (Atanu Dey) wrote:
>>Bertrand Russell wrote that the sign of a truly civilized human 
>>being is the ability to read a column of numbers and then weep.
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
> Surely it is good, also, to be able to read a column and jump for joy.
> That the number of the hungry is shrinking, in both numbers and in
> proportion to the whole of humanity, is reason for great celebration.
> 
I note:
Here I thought that one indication of a truly civilized man or woman 
of any race, religion, etc., is the ability to read a column of 
numbers and ask himself, 'what does this mean?'  Surely crying over 
numbers is useless.  Surely celebrating half-finished tasks is 
premature.

Doug Huffman (dhuffman@mail.awod.com) wrote:
: Good retort, Mr. Cooney.  I was impressed by the way Mr. Bruhns, not
: being able to answer Mr. Guthrie's question in a satisfying way,
: answered an entirely different question.  And walked away contented.
  Actually it was a very poor retort, because by blaming a few
reactor operators, Mr. Cooney unwittingly indicates just how
little safety there really is in nuclear power.  In fact, he makes my
point.
  So by all means, Mr. Huffman, encourage Mr. Cooney.  People should
see how weak the claims of nuclear safety really are.
  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net

Mike Asher wrote:
> 
....
Freisel (note ie - Austro-Hungarian in origin, probably a modified 
version of 'Frieslander') and Scott generally yield to
> rational arguments-- their differences are in premises, not logic--
I reply:
Yes...the difficulty is finding rational argument on the net, although 
many posters seem to think that being loud and ignoring their own 
contradictions, as well as ignoring coherent arguments which 
contradict their positions, seems to constitute some form of logical 
thought.

> CARB will not allow you to buy a VW in Mexico and bring it into 
> California because it does not meet 1996 pollution standards.  
My question was how much they sell for - I am sure CARB would allow them 
to be brought in sans drivetrain/engine - there would be no emmissions ;)
I am also sure that you could easily modify the original engine(or put 
sometihng else into it) to pass smog in the other states, if not CA.
It occured to me that it would be a good platform for EV or hybrid 
designs as it has:
1:A real frame - essential for most EV vehicles
2:RWD - tons of space for batteries back there, in addition to a simple
  trans(if even used) - good position for an engine if a hybrid.
3:Tons of space everywhere.  Delete back seat area if necessarry.
4:Fairly simple design, and easy to find parts for.  Cheap repairs for 
  most parts of the vehicle.
5:About as safe as a Metro, and if not as safe, adding better seatbelts,
  a modified rolcage, and/or airbags should do it.  Sure it isn't a 
  Hummer, but it should be acceptable.
6:A lot cheaper to work on and modify from a conversion perspective, 
  including initial cost.  A Metro goes for 8000 or so on sale, stripped.
  This should cost a lot less and provide a new vehicle rather than a 
  used one.
Joe
P.S.
Sure, you could convert a Bug and make it work, but everything being 20+ 
yrs old on the car would be a mess.

David Prime (david.prime@man.ac.uk) wrote:
: That is why the Atomic Bomb Survivors is so important - there is sufficient
: collective dose. Because you cannot see an excess of cancers in a
: population by normal statistical tests does mean that some agent is not
: causing cancers, it means that your study does not have sufficient
: statistical power to detect an excess. Studies on small groups of workers
: or others exposed to radiation do not have sufficient statistical power to
: detect effect - you cannot conclude from these that cancer initiation
: requires a threshold radiation dose.
  And there can be deadly effects other than cancers, which of course
would not show up in a cancer survey.  Infant mortality, immune
deficiencies, etc. (Jay M. Gould and Ernest J. Sternglass, "Low-level
radiation and mortality," Chemtech, January 1989, published by American
Chemical Society, Washington, DC.; Abram Petkau, "Radiation carcinogenisis
from a membrane perspective," Acta Physiologica Scandanavia, Supplement,
1980.)
  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net

Kind of random but I'm looking for a video of a car colliding with a
wall with its airbag going off.  Any assistance would be vastly
appreciated
R.

Bob Scaringe (rps@mainstream-engr.com) wrote:
: The damage to the Ozone Layer by CFC's is a theory (Roland-Molina
: theory) it is not fact!  For example one volcano dumps many more
: chlorides than have even been produced by mankind in CFC's - I believe
: the ban of CFC's was an over-reaction.  What about the increased
: environmental effects due to lower performance A/C's.  That is the
: HFC-134a A/C unit uses more energy that the equivalent tonnage HCFC-22
: machine.  Than means more pollution to generate the additional power.
: The bottom line is CFC's are gone and  EPA tech certification is here
: to stay.  Like it or not.  www.epatest.com
  For a really plain demonstration that volcanic activity has been
overtaken by human pollution, study the Greenland ice crust.  Borings
of this crust show that human pollution greatly exceeds volcanic
upheaval except for a few months at the peaks of the largest volcanic
events.  You can see the ever increasing human background pollution
against the historic volcanic events.  You can see the effects of the
industrial age, the automotive boom, etc.  It's right there.  Go look.
  I found this evidence in my local public library, and you can too.  
You are listening to too much Rush Limbaugh, I think.
  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net

Jason Monson (jmonson@chch.planet.org.nz) wrote:
: Somewhat surprisingly to me when I learned that in fact plastic may
: be better...
: Reasoning....  when paper degrades, whatever chemicals and inks were
: used in that paper are now free to leach into ground water and
: pollute the environment...
: Where as plastic although made up of lots of nasty things is very
: stable, and will not break down... hence none of those nasty things
: will get into the environment...
: it all depends what you consider worse... nasty chemicals leaching
: into ground water, or plastic taking up space at a landfill.
  This ink issue is a good reason to use soy inks.  The chemical issue is 
a reason NOT to use chlorine bleach, which produces dioxin, in paper
processing.  Oxygen bleach is far preferable.
  And around the northeast USA, plastics are generally incinerated
before being landfilled (as hazardous waste, after incineration).
Incineration is crippling the economy there, and releasing plenty of
nastiness into the air.  Paper need not be incinerated; it can be
profitably recycled...  Or, if it is contaminated with food, etc,
it can be composted into good fertilizer.  
  The plastics and incineration industries have disseminated lots of
anti-paper and anti-recycling propaganda, and it has deceived many.
  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net

> Instead of glibly saying you can easily see it, why not present some
> calcs, drawing these costs out on a per kilowatt-hour basis? Frankly,
> despite the rather high costs these things represent, I don't see at
> all that easily that one can draw the conclusion you do.
Instead of glibly saying that you want me to calculate these costs, why
don't you give me the figures for all the indirect costs of nuclear and
coal? How much does a human life cost?
> The problem isn't weight loading; it's that all those rooftops are
> private property. You also lose a LOT of economies of scale in
> construction. It's not at all clear that this is a more economically
> feasible than central stations.
It's a no win situation: you either give up a right to some portion of
your private property (namely, your rooftop) for lower energy costs, or
you tear up giant tracts of land and pay more. I for one, would be
willing to donate my rooftop... call me a liberal.
> We are burying it in the ground because the government lost the will to
> do the recycling. We actually had such facilities at (I believe)
> Savannah River.
Savannah river is a vitrification plant. After the waste is vitrified,
it's just shipped to some other repository.
William

Bob Scaringe (rps@mainstream-engr.com) wrote:
: The real truth about the depletion of the ozone by chlorides and
: bromides is that it is just a theory by two professors from Calif.
: (Rowland-Molina theory).  Acutally one volcano dumps more Cl and Br
: into the atmoshphere that all the CFC's ever made.    To make it
: worse, the  HFC's (zero Ozone Depletion) provide lower performance so
: you use more energy and make more emmisions (Nox, CO,...) producing
: the energy.
  No, the real truth is that CFCs are causing the destruction of our
much-needed ozone layer, and they have to be discontinued, even though
it means we must sacrifice Freon 12, an otherwise excellent
refrigerant.
  Again, check the Greenland ice borings for the truth on volcanic
activity; you will find that human pollution outstrips even this
phenominal source of atmospheric debris, except for a short time at
the peak of volcanic activity, when volcanic output approximately
equals human pollution (the level approximately doubles for a
little while).
  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net

Mason A. Clark wrote:
> 
> Reading from a computer screen, I'm learning, is far more difficult
> than from a book.
I agree:
I agree.
He continues:
> 
> Hanson, bless his entropic soul, publishes articles by scientists who
> actually do research in ecology, then people blame Hanson for what
> they say.  It's "what Hanson says is wrong,"  "Hanson's definition
> makes no sense," etc. etc.
I reply:
Neither impressive nor convincing, is it?
He continues:
> 
> Is it possible that the thousands of scientists who do research
> in ecology are all a bunch of ideological jerks?
I reply:
No, they are not, in general.
Mason continues:
> 
> More than once, groups of distinguished scientists have posted
> warnings.  Who am I to take more seriously: the bright xxxxx's who
> post here, or the many experts who warn us of ecological hazards?
I reply:
The experts, clearly, with the caveat that you look carefully at who 
provides their funding, and the validity of their claims and 
references.

In article <01bbd429$66163660$89d0d6cc@masher>, "Mike Asher"  writes...
>JAMES BENTHALL  wrote:
>> > 
>> >On my side, the Cornucopians.  Believing that any problem will bow to
>the
>> >intellect of man, that each year we will accomplish more than ever
>before,
>> >give more to our children, and our children more still to theirs. 
>> 
>> You should change your name from the "Cornucopians" to the "Polyannans"
>;)
>> The days of each generation achieving more than the previous one is over.
> 
>"Pollyannas" is perhaps more correct, James.  As far as each generation
>achieving more the the previous, I can only say, speak for yourself.  
Polyanna refers to one.  Polyannans is correct.  I don't speak for myself,
the facts speak for me.  Fact:  Real wages have plummeted in the last two
decades for the bottom 20% of the U.S. population, while they have risen
nearly as much for the top 10%.
> 
>> ...manufacturing jobs being lossed due to "free trade" agreements
> 
>"Lost", you mean?  Careful, we're speaking on a global perspective here. 
>Do you think free trade agreements cause jobs to shift to martians?  I
>won't point out the other fallacies here, John or someone else here more
>versed in economics can do the job better than I.
>  
The statement I made pertains to U.S. manufacturing.  (As if you really
have a "global perspective"...).
                                                On With the Revolution,
                                                 James Benthall

In article <328e14c4.391777536@news.primenet.com>
 ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) writes:
>On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 01:00:27 GMT, gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com
>(gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>>af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>>>(John Moore) wrote:
>>>: Furthermore, if a powerful corporation can create a corrupt
>>>: government, then the CITIZENS are sleeping at the switch.
>>>  I read that in this weeks federal election in the U.S. voter turnout
>>>was the smallest in recorded history.
>>this one has an easy solution a mandatory voting act
>I must vigorously disagree. A mandatory voting act means lots of
>uninformed and uncaring people will be making the choices. The
>curreent system selects for those who care enough to vote, and such
>people are far more likely to be informed. To me, that is an much
>better solution.
No. Often they are only single-interest voters, such as Greens,
Health, Education, Welfare, or Government Spending. The rest
of the country aren't commited to such issues, and may like/dislike
parts of the policies or the specific local candidate of the political 
parties.
>Of course, it would help us in your goal to bring us closer to the
>society of the old USSR - they had mandatory voting also :-)
As does Australia, New Zealand has mandatory enrollment,
but not mandatory voting. That's in part so court juries can
be selected from the full spectrum of the population. 
New Zealand has just moved from a first-past-the-post
system ( like the US ) to a proportional-representation system ( Mixed
Member Proportional - like Germany ), and had one of the highest voter 
turnouts ( around 90% from memory ) ever. Of course we elect the
same bunnies as politicians, but they will have to find consensus
far more often on important issues, as the makeup of the parliament
is based on all the party list votes, not the local candidate votes, so
voters can vote for a favourite local candidate and the Greens party
nationally. [ The examples of Greens is solely used to deflect email
about inappropriate posting from Cameron :-) )
                      Bruce Hamilton

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 08:48:47 -0600, Leonard Evens 
wrote:
>John Moore wrote:
>> 
>
>> Let me also point out that Idso (1989) [a historical climatologist]
>> suggested that greenhouse warming may actually decrease the frequency
>> and intensity of hurricanes. I have heard Idso speak on the topic.
>> 
>
>Let me suggest that you not rely on one selectively chosen source.
>If I remember correctly, Idso is one of the few `greenhouse critics', so
>while his opinion may be useful, it is worthwhile trying to get a broad
>range of opinions.   This is just the purpose of the Intergovernmental
>Panel on Climate Change.   I have just checked Chapter
>6 of Climate Change, 1995, the most recent Report of the IPCC.  They
>conclude that current models are not sufficiently sophisticated to make
>predictions about the intensity of storms. 
This point was made before I even posted. And note that Idso did not
say it WOULD decrease storms, he just pointed out the possibility -
ie, he pointed out the uncertainy, as you have just done, except he
did it some time back.
Oh, and yes, Sherwood Idso is another skeptic (or was then - I don't
know what he is up to now).
And one reason I use those sources is that Balling and Idso are local
so I have a chance to hear them. But there are other, "pro" global
warming climatologists also local that I also listen to
>> Even scientific supporters of the global warming theory have objected
>> to the supposition that a bit of recent severe weather increase has
>> any significant about that debate.
>> 
>
>That may be, but the Karl, et. al. study at least raises this possiblity
>with respect to some extreme events, but as you say there is probably no
>reason to expect intensity of storms to increase on the basis of what is
>now known.   But increased flooding is a distinct possibility, and
>certainly more extremes in temperatures would be expected..
ALL are possibilities. The problem is with the people, like the guy I
was responding to, who jump to conclusions. The press said, with
enough hype to make on think that it was a solid fact, that recent
heavy weather was the first clear sign of global warming. I think you
will agree that they were wrong. 

In article <328fcc9c.14429346@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Mason A. Clark  wrote:
[...]
>There is a fatal (excuse the pun) misunderstanding about the nature of 
>radiation.  The reported exposure of the populace to radiation caused by
>the Three-Mile Island accident was well measured and by conservative 
>calculation killed at least three people.  We don't know who they are (or 
>were or will be) and we don't know when they died (or will die).
Do you have a cite for that "three people" figure?
[...]
>The fact that there have been few deaths, less than in coal mines and 
>gas and oil fields, is beside the point here.
Far, far, fewer. Even than in actual fossil power plants. Coal,
especially, tends to be dangerous, and this is particularly true of
modern plants that use pulverization and blown fuel.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

louis@cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) wrote:
>BTW, the "capitalism" that "saved" South Korea owes more to List than
>to Samuleson.  They, and the Japanese, practiced a closed (tight) home
>market while developing the industry and infrastructure with a form of
>state supported capitalism...
There is some truth to this, but not very much.  Most of the closed
doors of Japan are the inventions of failed businessmen who didn't
speak the language, couldn't read the menus -- let alone the
Commercial Code or their competitors' manuals -- and went crying home
to Aunt Martha with a long list of "It's all their fault" excuses.
As for state supported capitalism, you've got to remember that this is
the bunch of geniuses who told Honda that he should stick to making
motorcycles, and Matsushita that he should leave electrical exports to
the big guys.
                                      -dlj.

Most of the recent disastrous events or creeping processes are usually
discussed in isolated disciplinary contexts. Some do this for scientific
reasons, but, often this isolating perspective is used to play down
these frightening new phenomena. Is there a common causal factor behind
all this? Do we have to see these threatening events within a larger
circle? We would like to get some backfeed on our philosophical attempt
to outline such common factors. See our 'disaster scenario':
http://home.worldcom.ch/~negenter/111KUnterg_E.html

Steinn Sigurdsson  wrote:
> Jay Hanson  writes:
>
> > It never fails to amaze me that there are so many
> > idiots in universities.  What do you do at Cambridge?
> > Sweep up?
> 
> Ho hum. Only if it needs to be done and no one else
> will do it. My position at Cambridge is a matter of
> public record if you actually care.
> 
Cut Jay some slack, Stein.  He lost the Janet Reno look-alike contest last
week, he's still getting over it.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do."
Bertrand Russell 

I am rather sceptical of the conclusions drawn here, and would like to check the qualifications of
some of these statements.
Mike Asher wrote:
>
> William Royea  wrote:
> > Can you please elaborate on the argument presented in this reference?
> >
>
> You mean, why is solar power so dangerous?  Solar systems require vast
> areas of collection cells, covering with lens, mirrors, and or photovoltaic
> cells.   (For instance, the Calfornia plant "Solar One", used one million
> square feet of mirrors, all computer-driven, covering 75 acres)   These
> vast collection areas must be kept free of dust, grease, snow, leaves, and
> other foreign material.
OK, the above is a given.
>
> The 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US is from falls;
> accidents from workers climbing onto collecting surfaces or supporting
> structures will be high.  In an industrial setting, this could be lessened
> somwhat by automatic mechanisms (which must themselves be cleaned and
> maintained) but, in an homeowner situation, there is no recourse but that
> Joe Handyman climb up and clean.  And, unlike rain gutters, this must be
> done often, as a dirty collector will refuse to heat your home.
I would love to see the "hard statistical facts" concerning the multitudes of inept homeowners who
clumsily sucumb to an untimely death, al la "I've Fallen and I can't get up"!  I bet there aren't
any!
> Contrast
> this with US nuclear power generation, which has two thousand reactor years
> of operational experience, all without a single death.
Of course, nobody every has died in any mining accidents related to the retrieval of uranium ore,
and no miners were ever exposed to dangerous levels of radiation during mining.  And non of the
trains used to haul the ore ever got into one fatal accident.  And no construction workers ever had
fatal accidents during construction.  Sorry Mike, I do not in a heartbeat believe the above
statement.
> Coal generation
> kills several thousand people a year, yet it is considered "safe" by the
> great unwashed, while nuclear power is "dangerous".
I do not consider coal generation safe, as I do not think electric cars solve any problems.  The
electricity they run on more than likely comes from a coal burning power plant, thereby only
removing the polluting effects of the driving, from the drivers eyes and concience, but not from
the environment.
>
> The environmental damage from solar power comes from the vast amount of
> material required to build it: aluminum, concrete, copper, steels, glass,
> chromium, cadmium, etc, etc-- far more than a corresponding nuclear or coal
> plant requires.
STOP RIGHT THERE!  You ought a know right now!  Befor we go any further do you realize what you
have said.  You claim tremendous costs in construction for solar power.  I guess multi billion
dollar Nuclear plants are Cheap?  The important point you gloss over so swiftly, is this.  Once the
solar facility is built(that is if it is designed right), it becomes basically a passive entity,
requiring no more construction, no mining of fuel, no transportation of fuel.
Even If a coal or nuclear facility were constructed cheaper(which I doubt can occur), these dirty
facilities, and the logistical demands of supplying them, bring new pollutants into the
environment, every day they operate.  These polutants bring with them hidden costs, not the least
of which is human death, pain, and suffering.  The solar facility, quit doing so, the day
construction was completed.
> Many of the materials are dangerous and highly toxic.
> Also, huge amounts of land must be suborned to collection of light.  For
> example, to power New York City, you must cover an area greater than the
> size of the city itself.   What forest, I ask, shall we raze to cover with
> mirrors, for the next solar power station?
I am currently designing a passive open air kiln for the drying of cementious materials.  The
covered(roof only) structure will only involve basic ecosafe building materials.  The reflectors we
will be using will also be reletively low tech.  In the Texas sun, we will have 9 months a year of
passive relatively high temperature heating for this building.  Any conventional methodologies to
accomplish the same, would involve the daily spending of fuel(either gas, or electric heat.)  The
tools used to wash reflectors will amount to a soft brush on a long handle, a squeege on a long
handle, and a bucket of water with ammonia added.  Now unless one of our brilliant laborers, falls
head first into the bucket and drowns, I do not think we will have to worry about any untimely
deaths.
I look forward to input from other objective people in hear, who can step far enough away from the
wall to see a bigger picture, in this type of head to head confrontation, between green
technologies, and the same old same old.
>
> --
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
>
> "Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people
> attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends
> on unreasonable people."
> - George Bernard Shaw
Well I like the qoute!  :-)
Regards
-- 
Vince Clause  -  Inventor/Entrepreneur/Naturalist                  
President  -  V R C  Enterprises Inc.                              
###################################################################
#    ---->   ---->    http://www.ecosafe.com     <----    <----   #
#  Marketing Research*Product Design and Development*Consulting   #
#Systems Analysis, Design, Administration*Specialized Web Services#
#                                                                 #
#           Please visit our new FREE online magazine,            #
#                     "The Amalgamated Web"                       #
#            at http://www.ecosafe.com/taw/index.htm              #
#                                                                 #
#     _/      _/      _/_/_/         _/_/_/        _/_/_/_/       #
#      _/    _/       _/   _/       _/    _/       _/             #
#       _/  _/        _/_/_/        _/             _/_/_/         #
#        _/_/         _/  _/        _/    _/       _/             #
#         _/    @     _/   _/  @     _/_/_/  @     _/_/_/_/ @     #
#                                                                 #
#   V R C  Enterprises Inc.          E-Mail -> VRCE@Ecosafe.Com   #
#   22111 Rockgate Drive             Phone  -> (713) 821-7313     #
#   Spring, Texas 77373              V-Mail -> (713) 275-9692     #
#  S U C C E S S     I S     A S      S U C C E S S      D O E S  #
# ~*************~   ~***~   ~***~    ~*************~    ~*******~ #
###############################################################1996

Ron Jeremy wrote:
> Stop ruining Caltech's image by posting gibberish.  HLW disposal,
> decomissioning, etc. are all accounted for in the cost.  Consumers have
> poured over $12 billion into the HLW fund to date.  The real problem is
> that the gov't has spent nearly a third of that and has yet to
> characterize Yucca Mt. as acceptable.
I post my opinions, not my school's. Maybe the reason we haven't
characterized Yucca Mt. as acceptable is because enough people have a
problem with burying hlw after whats happened in Hanford.
> It's Solar 2 now.  I'm curious to see your engineering analysis of
> Solar 2, please post it.  BTW, Solar 2 uses heliostats, not PVs but I'm
> sure you were aware of that.
In case you haven't gathered, I'm not for using solar plants. I only
advocate using areas that aren't being used, like your rooftop. I am
also not an extremist: I don't believe that it is feasible to convert to
100% solar power with today's techonology.
> You could always sign for a health physics elective when you're a sophmore.
> Ignorance can be cured (stupidity on the other hand...).
Do you think the people on this newsgroup are stupid enough to mistake
your insults for sensible arguments against solar energy?
> Lead, sounds like environmental friendly material to me.  Hmm, why did we
> remove it from gasoline, paint, etc. :-)
Lead toxicity results from inhalation and ingestion. We removed if from
gasoline and paint to reduce the atmospheric lead concentrations which
use to reach concentrations as high as 10 micrograms/cubic meter of air.
There is still widespread use of lead-acid batteries, because the lead
is recyclable.
In response to a previous message, load leveling with lead acid is even
done here in California (at the Chino substation).
William

Michael Martin-Smith wrote:
> 
....
More fuel for the fire, though only mildly related to the point.  But 
see?  First we have one character looking for anti-moonies.  Now you 
create a plethora of them as well without a single one actually 
appearing, (and no mention of McCarthy's anti-technologists).  
McCarthy says: 'Jump!'
'Thrusting his head half-way into the binnacle, Ahab caught one 
glimpse of the compasses; his uplifted arm slowly fell; for a moment 
he almost seemed to stagger.  Standing behind him Starbuck looked, and 
lo! the two compasses pointed East, and the Pequod was as infallibly 
going West.'
Herman Melville     Moby Dick
> Obviously, there will be people who object to mining the moon, for a
> vasriety of reasons
> 1/ too costly - Apollo cost less than 12 month's consumption of nicotine
> in the US, or (possibly) vodka by Khrushchev+Beria+ Stalin+Molotov+Brezh
> nev+Yeltsin, let alone the rest of the Russians!
> 2/ It might disfigure the Moon by open cast mining- our crater would not
> look as pretty as Nature's!
> 3/ We should stay on Earth anyhow, because God put us here, but somehow
> slipped up and gave us the smarts and materials to figure out a way of
> getting off it anyhow
> 4/We're a mistake, and should allow ourselves to become extinct because
> we're a rotten lot of plunderers, and unfit to live. Even if that was
> all we are, suicide is not our decision to take - no religion says we
> have the right to murder ourselves or our descendants, whether by
> neglect or active genocide, nor have we the right to fail to develop to
> our full potential as the generators of Life and Mind in the Universe,
> if such is within our power.
> 5/ In the game of Life, the rules say that we play to win, or else lose
> the board..
> 6/ we should solve our problems here before monkeying about up there.
>  Fair enough, but that is a false antithesis. We waste far more money on
> cigarettes, drugs, warfare, and wasteful living than we ever could do on
> the Moon; let's axe those first!
> --
> Michael Martin-Smith

In article <328FBC2C.21DC@ix.netcom.com> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
 > John McCarthy wrote:
 > > 
 > > 
 > > Somehow I would think that a member of the American Solar Energy
 > > Society would have access to information about how much work is
 > > required to maintain solar systems.
 > > 
 > > The burden of proof is on Stewart.
 > 
 > 
 > I note:
 > 
 > Somehow I would think that a man who claims we will be able to extract 
 > trace minerals from rock economically could come up with a way to 
 > minimize the work necessary to maintain a solar array.  If this is too 
 > much to ask, what isn't?
I was hoping Friesel had put me in his kill file.
First, I didn't ever say "trace minerals".  I referred to minerals at their
concentration in random rock.  This is not the way the term "trace" is
used.  
Second, what my file 
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/thermo.html 
shows is that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't forbid use of
low concentration ores.  It doesn't offer a way of doing it
economically, but only refutes those who claimed that the second law
forbids it.
My opinion is that we will eventually use low concentration ores, but
the ways of doing so are unlikely to be developed as long as there are
plenty of rich ores.  There are also the land fills which may be
richer in many useful elements than random rock.
Some of my research is oriented to robotics.  Robots will indeed be
able to maintain solar arrays without hazard to humans.
The people who put solar array and solar panels on their roofs today
are taking their chances at present levels of hazard of roof work.
Not a large risk, but apparently larger than that of working in
nuclear power plant.  Of course, amateurs run higher risks than
professionals.
I believe OSHA has a fair amount to say about working on roofs.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.