Newsgroup sci.energy 56376

Directory

Alastair McKinstry  wrote:
dlj wrote, about energy: 
>> Not a problem.
>
>But it is a problem. A major cause of misunderstanding in this debate
>is whether you do the calculations based on the rest of the world wanting
>an American (or European) scale of consumption. If you do allow for the
>rest of the worlds' aspirations, then we don't have hundreds of years
>worth of gas,oil,coal,etc; we can't build fission reactors fast enough
>(to western safety standards, at least) and fusion will not be here
>near fast enough. 
>
Of course we can.  We built nuclear reactors by the dozen off assembly
lines int he fifties and sixties.  Those were the engines for the cold
war submarines on all sides.  Some of the assembly lines are still in
existence, and others can easily be built, and just as fast as the
previous ones.
As soon as the price of oil rises to the price of uranium, per
terajoule, we'll simply crank the process up again.  McKinstry is
simply being silly.
                                    -dlj.

Barry Merriman wrote:
> 
> Gas is less that $1 a gallon in LA these days. Check it out at:
> 
> http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/gasprices/99cents.html
I heard that it is going back up because of the Texaco refinery
explosion. 
Any little excuse...
-- 
Russ Poffenberger               Engineering Specialist
Schlumberger Technologies ATE   DOMAIN: poffen@San-Jose.ate.slb.com
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:	72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110             Voice: (408)437-5254  FAX: (408)437-5246

Michael Turton stated:
/*
The total ground area used by a nuclear power plant is much larger
than you think.  Your author's ideological biases are open and obvious.
He "forgot" to include that uranium mining and refining use a great deal
of
land and kill miners as well.
*/
Michael, how much land in Taiwan is consumed by 
uranium mines? (I believe the answer is none)
The fuel for your plants is so compact that it is flown in
a couple of times each year.
The total world production of uranium in 1992 was only
36246 metric tons (Uranium 1993 Resources, Production,
and Demand, OECD publications.  AKA The Red Book)
That is small potatoes in the mining world.  For
comparison, the US consumption of coal is currently
between 850 million and 900 million tons per year.
You might consider these facts to be ideologically biased,
but I consider them to be a matter of public record that
is easily verified.
Rod Adams

In article <56da4v$omm@usenet.Hydro.ON.CA>,
   Dwight Zerkee  wrote:
>Most technologies are in widespread use as they are the most efficient 
compromise
>available at the time. If oil becomes too expensive due to decreasing supply, 
some other
>energy source will become the most efficient compromise (cost vs. energy 
content).
>Until that happens, there is no economic incentive for firms, individuals, 
etc. to 
>invest money in making the alternative technology more efficient in its use 
of that
>energy source.
>
>dz.
	Unfortunately, there is no support from the history of technology
for this point of view.  For any given set of competing technologies, the
reasons for the emergence of one technology is the result of a complex
of factors involving market clout, government subsidies, social preferences,
political power/connections and so forth.  "Efficiency" is a relative value,
not an absolutely discursive measure of performance.  Take the history of
automobiles.  Around the turn of the century, there were a number of competing 
powerplants for automobiles,and good arguments to be made for steam and 
electric cars.  Yet gasoline emerged triumphant.  Or take computers.  Was the
IBM PC better than the Mac and Amiga?  Of the three, it had the worst 
interface, the worst multimedia capabilities and the worst memory-management
system, yet due to IBM's perspicacious decision to allow clones to be made
and to its incredible market clout and reputation, and to the values of
businessmen (who would not buy colorful Amigas because anything with color
*must* be a toy) the PC is now the most dominant.  I won't even bother to
discuss MS-DOS......I could multiply examples from other fields.  Check out
Mackenzie and Wajcman, J. _The Social Shaping of Technology_ for other
examples. 
	Getting back to wind vs. nuclear.  Your info is a little out of date.
Most of the prairie states in the west could generate many times their 
consumption of energy with wind power even at current levels of technology; 
North Dakota could generate 40% of the US electricity supply (Citing DOE 
publications; there are many. See _Renewable resourcesn in the US electricity
Supply_).  You are right about economic incentives, however.  As the nuclear 
and fossil industries get much larger subsidies than solar or wind, they
remain the market leaders.  "Efficiency" is pretty much a calculus of the
subsidy regime, the political clout of the industries and firms, historical
accidents (lots of oil in the US), US military policy and so forth. There's no 
objective value out there we can turn to to determine which technology is the 
most efficient -- heck, light water reactors are not even the most efficient 
design; yet they won out because of decisions made by Rickover (see Morone and 
Woodhouse _The Demise of Nuclear Power?_.) which had nothing to do with needs
for civilian power generation.  So, when the political calculus underlying
nuclear power's claims of efficiency changes, so will the current energy 
regime in the US.
Mike Turton

On 15 Nov 1996 14:38:27 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Would you like to explain why your suspicion should be valid? It seems to 
> me that for many thousands of years when the global population was stable, 
> the ecological impact was also stable.
> 
Over what chosen time interval was the human population ever "stable"?
During recorded history there were ecological impacts of population expansion,
over-grazing, natural disasters (such as floods), and militaristic expansions led 
by demagogues (Attilla?)  Humanity and stability don't go together.
The more it changes the more it stays the same.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

I'm sure this kind of thing has been posted before, BUT to really define
the limits of growth, it is an easy calculation (I just set up a spead
sheet and did it in 1 minute) to see why population (and therefore
economic) growth can't continue forever:
At a 1% annual population growth, in 3105 years the mass of humanity would
be equal to the entire mass of the earth!  In 17,000 years (if such growth
COULD be sustained) there would be more people than the number of atoms in
the known Universe.  
Growth MUST slow eventually and a stable world population must become a
reality--sooner than later.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  
 ++++++++++++
Richard W. Tarara
Department of Chemistry & Physics	Free Physics & Energy Instructional 
Software
Saint Mary's College			available at:	
Notre Dame, IN 46556
219-284-4664				http://estel.uindy.edu/aapt/rickt/software/
rtarara@saintmarys.edu	
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/mirrors/tarara/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++

In article <56hojq$gs9@ddi2.digital.net>, Rod Adams   wrote:
>
>Most readers on this board probably have a car.  If so, they know how
>dirty it can get in a city or suburb, even if there is rain and even if
>the car simply sits in the driveway.  Some of the dirt is easily
>removed, while other components are more difficult, especially if
>you happen to live in a reasonably industrialized city.
Locally, Caltrans installed PV powered emergency call boxes
along most highways. If you have the same, ask yourself when
was the last time you saw someone cleaning the panels. Ditto
for hot water heating (A more likely source of any 1983
statistics than photo-voltaic).
>My car will also operate if dirty.  It just does not operate
> very well.
My PV panels were last washed ~7 years ago, and continue to
work reasonably well. My truck windshield gets cleaned occasionally
because I need optical clarity. I note that when parked, it still
gets pretty hot inside even through a dirty windshield. The rest of
truck gets washed once a year or so whether it needs it or not,
but this does not seem to improve its operation.
I doubt if washing panels is a show stopper.
>Rod Adams
>Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
>http://www.opennet.com/AAE

victor pierobon wrote:
> 
> 1. Has anyone come across any research on growing animal cancer cells
> in a plant nutrient as a meat product subtitute, producing cheaper meat
> for humanity and stopping slaughter of our animals.
I think you have an unrealistic view of cancer.
However, there are a variety of yeast and fungus organisms that
do very much this.  Common examples are chease and bread.
If this were a real problem, we could easily work out more.
> 2. Has anyone come across any research on the utilization on mountain
> goat gut bacteria for the purpose of turning plant cellulose into
> human digestible carbohydrates, allowing manking to utilize 100% of
> trees as a human food source.
Yes indeed.  The method is called "goats."
Converting plant matter into food for humans is not a technically
difficult problem.  The problem is not getting food energy out
of trees, it's getting balanced diets out of trees.
Humans already grow enough food to feed everybody.  With quite
a bit to spare.  In fact, in nearly every part of the world,
if there were adequate storage facilities which prevented
most insect and rodent and fungal damage, nearly every place
in the world would be able to feed themselves self sufficiently
nearly all of the time.  And, the remaining extra long droughts
or overly long wet seasons or unusual conditions of whatever
kind could nearly always be made up for in trade.  The real
loss of food in most places is due to insect and rodent
damage, and spoilage of food that is not kept properly.
Most of the places where this is not true are due to things
like violence (examples abound in Bosnia and Africa) or
government that does grotesque things.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
In an attempt to decrease the junk e-mail advertising I get,
I have made use of a junkmail address. To mail me, change
junkmail to dan.evens in my return address.
Dan Evens

Pim Reinders wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was asked to set up an educational do-center with hands-on experiments in the
> field of ENERGY, with leading themes:
> 
> WIND, WATER, SUN and FIRE.
> 
> This project is meant to illustrate scientific principles to children (ages
> 8 to 16).
> For this job I could use good ideas for illustrative experiments, preferrably
> experiments that require some action from the child's side.
> 
> Anyone out there to help me?
> 
>                                                               Pim Reinders
>                                                               reinders@nlr.nl
Three top-notch children's science museums in the US which have
interaction with the exhibits as their central design have web sites at:
Exploratorium in San Francisco, California
http://www.exploratorium.edu/
The Hands-On Museum in Ann Arbor, Michigan
http://www.hvcn.org/info/libaahom.html
and,
The Hands On Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida
http://www.webcoast.com/HandsOn/
I'm sure that there are others.
Bill Toman

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
: >Making energy efficiency a general goal is foolish.  What counts is
: >the labor efficiency that permits two percent of the American
: >population to grow food for all of us and then some for export.
: >Even yield/hectare is much less important than yield/man-hour.
: >American farms are typically less efficient than European in
: >yield/hectare and more efficient in yield/man-hour.
:  
: Which reminds me: if we've got a population surplus, howcome the price
: of labour is going up _everywhere_?
In the Thai toy industry, it is going down, due to competition from
China.  At least that was the case at the end of 1994.  China has
hundreds of millions of itinerant surplus laborers.
Labor cost has also dropped significantly in both the US and UK, due to
erosion of social protection.  At least that is true for people who
produce things.  I don't know about the service industry, but the
anecdotal bits I hear from the US are not inspiring of hope.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

Adam Ierymenko wrote:
> 
....del
> 
> A welfare system is created to help the poor.  Business is taxed to >pay for it.  This creates more unemployment and lower wages, which >creates greater demand for welfare, which requires more taxes, and so >on.  Eventually a critical mass
> of welfare recipients vs. workers is reached and the system goes >bankrupt.
I ask:
What do you think is really happening in society today?  I see lots of 
businesses jetisoning highly trained and experienced people who would 
like nothing better than to work.  They end up in a market where jobs 
are scarce and cost of living is high.  Meanwhile, the value of shares 
and the compensation of top corporate executives continues to 
skyrocket.  I don't think this trend was caused by taxes on 
businesses.

gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote:
> 
> hey stupid do you know anything about the global warming theory. The
> answer is of course not, but that won't keep you from shooting your
> mouth off and make an ass of yourself in the process.
>    Every on of those events are statistically significant.
> 
> >To do that you have to show that the weather is unusual in a
> >statistically significant manner
> .
>  just stated that above. Now moron do you realize that a rainfall of 3
> inches is statistically significant.
You've proven that the weather will be statistically significantly
bizarre and abnormal at certain times in some places.  This is why
records are continually broken.
You haven't proven that this is caused by global warming.  You haven't
proved that global warming exists.  You haven't proven that if the earth
is growing warmer than it results from human intervention.

In article <328CB84D.783B@hookup.net>,
   victor pierobon  wrote:
>1. Has anyone come across any research on growing animal 
cancer cells
>in a plant nutrient as a meat product subtitute, producing 
cheaper meat
>for humanity and stopping slaughter of our animals.
>
>2. Has anyone come across any research on the utilization 
on mountain
>goat gut bacteria for the purpose of turning plant 
cellulose into
>human digestible carbohydrates, allowing manking to utilize 
100% of
>trees as a human food source.
>
>Please contact  Victor Pierobon at 416 221-2340
Assuming the goat gut bacteria are anything like the 
bacteria in the stomachs of termites, the answer is very 
likely to be no.  For the termite case, there seems to be a 
big symbiosis going on.  The bacteria choose the termites'	
stomachs as their "environment", and the termites live off 
of the excess or waste products from the bacteria.  It is 
probably impossible to separate the termite bacteria from 
their natural habitat in order to do the bidding of humans
(at least, it is presently impossible).
BTW, don't you think that the "tree lovers" would hate to 
see this as much as you hate seeing animals used for food?
Also, do you seriously expect people to stop eating animal 
protein just because there is a new source of plant protein 
available?

In article <56iau8$8cd@news.one.net>,
	Adam Ierymenko  wrote:
>This is where I think nuclear may have a big niche.  We could power all
>automobiles, trucks, and even some aircraft off nuclear energy this way, and
>have zero CO2 (and other smog) emissions.  Would make L.A. a lot cleaner.
>Just use nuclear energy to split water and produce hydrogen in a centralized
>plant and convert the natural gas pipelines over to carrying hydrogen.
From what I understand, though, there would be a huge capital investment
involved in converting gas pipelines to carry hydrogen.  Hydrogen
molecules are considerably smaller than natural gas molecules, and so
would be more prone to leak past existing seals and gaskets.
	-Mike Pelletier.

In article <328ce6fa.2606136@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
 > On 15 Nov 1996 17:23:22 GMT, 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.
 > > 
 >   Here lies the most common fallacy in economics:  linearity.
 > 
 >   Linearity is valid ONLY for short time intervals.   And time is of 
 >   the essence, e.g. "the number of cars being made" is a time variable.
 > 
 >   There are NO linear relationships in economics over long time intervals.
 > 
 >    Classical and neo-classical economics are polluted with linearity 
 >    assumptions.
It relieves me that in arguing with Mason Clark I am not arguing with
the economics profession as a whole. 
Indeed input-output matrices are valid only over relatively short time
intervals.  That's why it would be nice to have the Commerce
Department publish a new one every year.
While the number of cars produced fluctuates rapidly, the amount of
steel used per cars changes very slowly between major model changes
and still changes slowly across model changes.
There are exceptions to this slow change.  For example, Coca-Cola can
switch among corn syrup and beet or cane sugar very rapidly as prices
fluctuate.  Refineries can switch their output mix rapidly and do so
according to demand. 
-- 
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.

In article <328ceb99.3788781@nntp.ix.netcom.com> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) writes:
 > 
 > On 15 Nov 1996 06:39:04 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
 > 
 > > In their fixation with energy as the measure of value, they were
 > > precursors of the energy religion of today.  I don't think they
 > > imagined that there was a shortage, however, so they weren't quite as
 > > dumb.
 > 
 >   All are dumb but me and ye, and I've doubts about ye.
 > ---------------------------------------
 > Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
I would be surprised if any large fraction of the economics profession
has fallen for the energy religion.
-- 
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.

George P. Swanson wrote:
/*
[continued inconsistent rhetoric that dust is a more complex 
 problem than controlling nuclear fission elided]
*/
George, I just happen to have a bit of experience in 
controlling a nuclear fission power plant.  It is not as
difficult as you might think.
It is a bit more cerebral than washing solar panels, but
it is demonstrably safer for the operators and produces 
measurably cheaper power when all costs are included.
Stated in other words, kilowatt-hour for kilowatt-hour
it is SIMPLER to produce electrical power from fission
than it is to produce it from sunlight.
Rod Adams

On 15 Nov 1996 17:23:22 GMT, 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.
> 
  Here lies the most common fallacy in economics:  linearity.
  Linearity is valid ONLY for short time intervals.   And time is of 
  the essence, e.g. "the number of cars being made" is a time variable.
  There are NO linear relationships in economics over long time intervals.
   Classical and neo-classical economics are polluted with linearity 
   assumptions.
    Pollyanna environmentalists are linearity ideologues.  Oh, oh, now I've
    insulted someone.  Sorry, my control system is non-linear today.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

George P. Swanson wrote:
/*
You wouldn't happen to live near one of those less-resource-intensive-
to-construct-than-a-solar-facility coal plants would you?
*/
As a matter of fact, George, I live quite close to four
major coal fired generators and one oil fired generator.
It just so happens that my area (Tampa Bay) depends
quite heavily on buring coal, a fact that never ceases to
frustrate me.
However, we are not unique, 56% of the electricity
produced in the United States comes from burning coal.
I would much rather live closer to nuclear plants,
but the only one near my home is surrounded by
four coal fired plants on the same site.
On the East Coast of Florida, near St. Lucie, the air is 
considerably cleaner, since the major source of power
there is two nuclear power plants.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

george p swanton  wrote:
> 
> This is really getting rather silly. Noone has argued that PV 
> is a panacea to be blanked-deployed accross _everyone's_ rooftop.
This is exactly what has been argued...which was the motivation for my
original post.  But even with 100% coverage of every roof in the country,
it still doesn't cover but a small fraction of our energy needs.
> .. Many homes/business could effectively host a PV array.
Agreed.   Please tell me what the subsidiary power source will be, however?
 Or are you seriously suggesting such an array would fill the entire energy
load?
>  Areas not having good solar access often benefit from good
> wind resources.
Yes, wind farms have worked so well in the past.  The example of Southern
Cal Edision, who spent thirty million for a 2MW plant leaps to mind.  It
was sold for scrap a few years later, for $51,000.  Or the windfarm in
Alameda Country, California?  The operators have had to buy out all nearby
homeowners, as the noise is unbelievable.  And they've also been the
subject of two (that I know of) lawsuits over the deaths from birds flying
into the vanes...included eagles and other protected species.   I believe
the cost per megawatt there is around $16,000.  Thats five times the cost
of  a coal or nuclear plant.
Some smaller wind turbines have been very succesful.  However, to claim
these can any significant fraction of demand is ludicrous.
> Those that couldn't might
> cooperate with a nearby site with better access to enlarge its array
Excuse me?  When that 'nearby site' isn't filling its own requirements? 
And how are they going to shuttle the electricity back and forth?  Run
cables from building to building?  Any idea of how much retrofitting power
cables would cost? 
> >>> 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.
> 
> >>Of course, Mike presents no data to support his allegation.
Presented, posted already.  Are the posts not reaching you?  
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France 

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: 
: Wrong.  A 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor requires approximately 4000 tons of
: concrete.  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.
:  Five times as much material, for 1/100 the power output....and Solar One
: is only online during the _daytime_.   I will add that, during its short
: period of operation, Solar One managed to catch fire and burn, seriously
: injuring two workers.   So, in a couple of years of operation, a 10 MW
: solar plant managed to cause more human injury than decades of operation by
: over 100 domestic nuclear reactors.  But solar power *is* safe, because we
: think it to be so.
As I stated in another thread, the pro-nuclear crowd must carefully and 
precisely state the "health effects" from commercial nuclear power.  
There have been industrial deaths to *workers* employed by the nuclear 
industry.  The industrial safety rate for commercial nuclear power is 
better than the US average.  Nothing harms an arguement more than 
zealously promoting your point at the expense of the facts.
Cheers,
tooie

On 15 Nov 1996 18:38:59 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >Precisely my point. Genocide has zero economic benefit. But the
> >"economism" of people like you is what brings this about. 
>  
> This is false.  Genocide is the result not of any "economism,"
> whatever that may be, but of reversion to pre-economic racisms. In
> Rwanda as in Germany, it is the expression of ancient tribalism.
>  
>                                      -dlj.
This is simply not correct, sorry.  The problem in Bosnia, Rwanda, 
Burundi, Azerbajan, Los Angeles and many other places is that a 
relatively affluent minority rules.  As in the French and Russian 
revolutions, a point comes when the majority revolts and sets about
killing off the minority.  This is political economics, not tribalism.
The tribal differences are historic and lie behind the minority rule 
but are not the cause of the revolt.
             Mason
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

atomicrod@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Michael Turton stated:
> /*
> The total ground area used by a nuclear power plant is much larger
> than you think.  Your author's ideological biases are open and obvious.
> He "forgot" to include that uranium mining and refining use a great deal
> of
> land and kill miners as well.
> */
> 
> Michael, how much land in Taiwan is consumed by
> uranium mines? (I believe the answer is none)
> 
> The fuel for your plants is so compact that it is flown in
> a couple of times each year.
> 
> The total world production of uranium in 1992 was only
> 36246 metric tons (Uranium 1993 Resources, Production,
> and Demand, OECD publications.  AKA The Red Book)
> 
> That is small potatoes in the mining world.  For
> comparison, the US consumption of coal is currently
> between 850 million and 900 million tons per year.
> 
> You might consider these facts to be ideologically biased,
> but I consider them to be a matter of public record that
> is easily verified.
> 
> Rod Adams
Hi Rod,
Coal mining involves a tremendous amount of land use and production
waste, but uranium mining is significant as well.  Your number for
uranium production is probably for yellowcake which does not include the
amount of overburden and associated ore which has to be moved, crushed
and discarded as waste in order to get to the uranium.  Does anyone know
what the multiplier should be to determine how much total (radioactive
and otherwise) material is discarded for a ton of yellowcake produced?
Bill Toman

On 15 Nov 1996, Mike Asher wrote:
> Yuri Kuchinsky  wrote:
> > 
> > : It would also be my guess that at the turn of the century there were
> > : 800 million hungry out of a population of a billion.
> > 
> > How do you know this? The number of hungry people on the planet is now 
> > greater than ever!
> > 
> 
> The FAO figures you quote indicate "malnourished" people.  FAO classifies
> people with sufficient caloric intake, but with a diet 'insufficiently
> varied' as malnourished as well.   Still a problem, of course, but please
> define it properly.
> 
> In Medieval times, 90+% of the population was chronically malnourished.  A
> man was deemed well off if he ate meat once a week.  Most children suffered
> from rickets and other defiency conditions.  Many castles and manor homes
> tossed trenchers (crusts of bread) and other dinner-table scraps to hungry
> people who clustered outside, who fought bitterly for line rights.  Often,
> a government official would, upon their yearly visit to a village, find
> that starvation and disease had wiped out the entire populace sometime in
> the past year, with none the wiser.
> 
> Beer was widely consumed, by children and adults, as water was too
> dangerous to drink.  When you did drink river water, you were taught to
> "strain" it between your teeth to remove the larger creatures found
> naturally in it.
> 
> Even the wealthy had their problems.  Food poisoning was endemic, fruits
> and vegetables were unknown out of season, seafood was impossible unless
> you lived near the coast, and at thirty-five, you needed soft food as your
> teeth had all rotted out...unless an abcessed tooth killed you, as was
> quite common.
> 
> This is the true world of 'organic' farming, biomass power, and
> deindustrialization many environmentalists would have us return to.  I'd
> prefer to work out our problems and stay here.
Mike, your description of medieval times was interesting, but does nothing
to buttress your last paragraph. It is complete fabrication.  The question
is, why do yuo persist in such poor attempts at propaganda? Is every issue
merely entertainment for you? Are you surprised that you get a lot of
replies that are all sarcasm and invective? Did you laugh when Bush called
Al Gore "Captain Ozone"? Do you want anyone to take you seriously outside
of a small circle of ideologically rigid compatriots? Do you see that I am
reduced to asking rhetorical questions, becasue substantive debate with
you is apparently impossible?.
		Dave Braun
> 
> --
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
> 
> "We must make this an insecure an uninhabitable place for capitalists and
> their projects.  This is the best contribution we can make towards
> protecting the earth."
>    - Environmental organization 'Ecotage', Earth First! offshoot.
> 
> 
> 

William Royea  wrote:
>Mike Asher wrote:
>> 
>> Michael Turton wrote:
>> 
>> >>Unfortunately, this is true.   Risk analysis studies rate solar
>> >> power as more dangerous than coal or nuclear.
>> >
>> >This is hilarious!  Solar power more dangerous than
>> >nuclear power.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
>> 
>> My source is "Energy Risk Assessment" Herbert Inhaber, 1983,  Gordon &
>> Breach.  Solar power is rated far more dangerous than nuclear, and even
>> more so than coal, with its deaths from lung disease and mining accidents.
>> 
>> --
>> Mike Asher
>> masher@tusc.net
>Can you please elaborate on the argument presented in this reference?
>William Royea
Oh my God.  I remember the Inhaber article from 1983 and it was flawed
then and even more so now.  As I recall (and I may be wrong) it based
part of its assumptions on the fact that solar would need fossil fuel
back ups when it was not in operation.  that was assumed to be heavily
coal fired and thus a lot of the deaths were attributed to that.  
With uitlity competition coming as well as some future greenhouse gas
restrictions,  most of that article would be obsolete
Regards,
Joel N. Gordes

In article <56i6kd$7gj@service3.uky.edu>,
TL ADAMS   wrote:
[...]
>I would further expand on the arguement that was touched on briefly,
>and that is the perception of influenceable vs uncontrollable risks.
>Falling off of a ladder while cleaning a gutter is a high risk, but
>will be a low preception of risk because the ind. has belief that he
>has control over the risk.  
>
>Another three mile island is an event that I have no control, and have
>lost my preceived abillity to control my own fate.
>
>Therefore, the preception will always be that the controllable is less of
>a risk than the uncontrollable.
You ability to control risks like cutter cleaning are irrelevant to a
discussion of the relative dangers of various means of generating
electricity.
[...]
>But back to the initial discussion, would the comparative risk numbers
>compare at all if on the nuclear side of the risk equation if the implied
>risk from the construction of high tension lines for the power equipement
>were included.  What about the risk incurred from the spraying of 
>defoliants under the power distribution grids.  What about the risks
>from the production of the steel of the towers, the copper and almu.
>of the transmission wires.  (Are all wires made from alum?)  And what
>about the risks of injury from powerline accidents, the fires and transformer
>stations.  Should we include the PCBs lurking in transformers (no,we
>shouldn't).  Takes alot defoliant to spray under those transmission lines.
The risk of maintaining power lines is relevant only where central
power stations are concerned. Thus, it might be necessary to consider
backyard solar and central solar separately.
[...]
>7) Not admitting that you have a secret relationship with a sheep.
You just lost your claim to rationality. I was starting to take you
seriously.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
>: Which reminds me: if we've got a population surplus, howcome the price
>: of labour is going up _everywhere_?
>
>In the Thai toy industry, it is going down, due to competition from
>China.  At least that was the case at the end of 1994.  China has
>hundreds of millions of itinerant surplus laborers.
This word "everywhere" is a great troll for instructive exceptions,
innit?  Anyway, I stand corrected, though not on Thailand.  Toy
assemblers will just move over to the next expanding industry, and
Chinese peasants will start oving up pretty soon.
>Labor cost has also dropped significantly in both the US and UK, due to
>erosion of social protection.  At least that is true for people who
>produce things.  I don't know about the service industry, but the
>anecdotal bits I hear from the US are not inspiring of hope.
Here I stand corrected, and it's a fun example: America does not have
a population crisis in anybody's books.  The white working class,
whose incomes were dropping in real terms for the decade ending second
quarter '96, are not even breeding at replacement rates.
                                    -dlj.

- agriculture ng's trimmed -
On 15 Nov 1996 18:38:59 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
wrote:
>This is false.  Genocide is the result not of any "economism,"
>whatever that may be, but of reversion to pre-economic racisms. In
>Rwanda as in Germany, it is the expression of ancient tribalism.
> 
>                                     -dlj.
As in Germany? Hitler was elected with the mandate that he 'get rid
of'  those who people blamed for taking their jobs and losing the war,
(thereby driving them into economic turmoil). The rise in popular
support for these racist actions was definitely economically driven.
Sound familiar?
As far as Rwanda, do you think the Hutus systematically murdered
hundreds of thousands simply out of hatred, or was it out of greed for
the land, resources and the benefits of a smaller population?
The fact that Mobutu, Zaire's dictator, has gradually built up a $7
billion personal empire from his country's wealth is reason enough to
spark rebellion. Rebellion which Mobutu has attempted keep down in
part by supporting the Hutus genocide. Just another expense of
maintaining his empire I guess.
Jason McGinnis

In article <328ce6fa.2606136@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, masonc@ix.netcom.com 
(Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>
>On 15 Nov 1996 17:23:22 GMT, 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.
>> 
>  Here lies the most common fallacy in economics:  linearity.
Of course, this is only a fallacy that nono-economists interpret into
economics when mouthing off about it without the merest factual
knowledge.  After all, economics seems to be the one professional 
area that anybody knows perfectly well without any qualifications.
>  Linearity is valid ONLY for short time intervals.   And time is of 
>  the essence, e.g. "the number of cars being made" is a time variable.
>
>  There are NO linear relationships in economics over long time 
intervals.
Congratulations, you have just invented the wheel.
>   Classical and neo-classical economics are polluted with linearity 
>   assumptions.
Do try to immerse yourself in economics a little bit more than leafing
through a textbook used for introducing concepts to absolute beginners
via greatly simplified figures.  You may find that the models that 
economists actually use are far from all being linear.
George Antony

On 14 Nov 1996 17:19:23 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
>Yuri Kuchinsky includes:
>
>     World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people
>     are starving on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink
>     glasses.
>
>I'm sure that "starving" isn't the word that was used by the World
>Food Organization.  If 800 million were starving, and the report was
>from last year, we would expect them to be dead by now.  Would
>Kuchinsky tell us what actually happened or will happen in the next
>year or two?
You want to know what's happening? Can you face the truth?
U.N. World Food Council documents:
-------
Every day around the world 40,000 people die of hunger. That's 28
human beings every minute, and three out of four of them
are children under the age of five.
The number of hungry people increased five times faster in the 1980s
than in the previous decade. By 1989, 550 million people filled the
ranks of the malnourished or hungry.
-------
This shows quite plainly that things are not getting better. Since
1989 the number of people facing famine has almost doubled. These
people are not simply upset that they have to live on swill instead of
a Big Mac and fries, they're dying.
If everyone produced and consumed food as North Americans do, there
would only be enough food on the planet to feed 2.5 Billion people. On
the other hand if Americans reduced their meat consumption by just
10%, it would free up 12 million tons of grain anually - more than
enough to feed all those facing famine.
Jason McGinnis

Energy from the Environment.
It is conceded that the extraction and conversion of the 
Thermal Energy ( K) of the environment, to Potential 
Energy, i.e. the ability to perform work, is a concept that 
is generally considered unacceptable.
Nevertheless, a means of achieving such a conversion, is 
established in nature, which circumvents the restrictions 
of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, without 
contravening them, and offers an unprecedented 
opportunity to secure a practical energy conversion, with 
the most profound and immediate potential benefit.
The theory upon which this concept is based, is unique to 
conversion from a thermal reservoir in the absence of a 
natural temperature gradient A thermal reservoir such as 
this exists only in this context, and therefore, is not 
relevant to any other application. An analogy may be 
drawn with the concept of the geo-stationary satellite, in 
its' unique application.
This concept  can actually be demonstrated by a 
currently unexplained, but factual example.
This claim, specifically, does NOT relate to the "heat 
pump", which does realise thermal energy from the 
thermal environment, and specifically, does NOT relate 
to  potential energy converted from existing NATURAL 
thermal gradients, in selected areas, ie. OTEC.
These new proposals offer conversion within a 
UNIVERSAL environment, where ever an accessible 
energy source is sufficient to sustain the requisite energy 
drain. The thermal storage capacity of this source, is the 
only limiting factor to the amount of energy that can be 
extracted.
The profound implications of such a breakthrough are 
most obvious to the discerning physicist. It is of 
particular note, that the massive capacity of oceans, to 
absorb and retain, the radiated heat from the sun, coupled 
with Oceans' thermal convection and physical flow 
characteristics, make an ideal source of virtually 
unlimited renewable unpolluting energy, within the 
context of our planets' composition.
There are also countless other components in the earth's 
environment which have extremely important practical 
applications, not the least of which, is the transient 
thermal energy in the ambient air or water of a moving 
vehicle or vessel.
The conviction that there IS an indirect route, via old and 
largely neglected technology, to the realisation of energy 
from the environment, has been received, not 
surprisingly, with profound derision, impatience and an 
unwillingness to consider such a possibility.
Over many years, however this criticism has only served 
to engender even more effort to substantiate the 
conviction.
Now in the evening of his retirement from a life time of 
substantial scientific involvement, the author is anxious 
that the perceived value of his concept will not be lost

This article below (I'm not affiliated with the subjects) has the
significance of having two major power development industry players
combine to market and finance complete photovoltaic systems.  Stewart &
Stevenson is well known for its competent and cost effective packaging
of gas turbine power plants and Besicorp is an established power project
developer which has several financed projects under its belt.  The only
question is....what's the cost?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Besicorp and Stewart & Stevenson to collaborate on
packaged photovoltaic power systems
KINGSTON, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE) via Individual Inc. --
BESICORP GROUP INC. (AMEX Emerging Company Marketplace -
BGI.EC) of Kingston, N.Y. and Stewart & Stevenson
International Inc., of Houston, have announced an
alliance to develop, manufacture, market and service
packaged photovoltaic ("PV") power stations.
The PV power stations will supply distributed electrical
loads for rural infrastructure needs such as
telecommunication networks and remote village
electrification. The companies will offer their products
and services to government utilities, wireless
telecommunication network providers, agricultural and
small industrial power users, and agencies involved in
rural economic development in emerging markets in Latin
America, Asia and Africa.
According to Michael Zinn, president and CEO of Besicorp,
"In power-starved areas of the developing world, people
are suffering due to lack of adequate infrastructure for
economic development. Government and private agencies are
implementing programs to meet this pressing need for
energy. The alliance of Stewart & Stevenson and Besicorp
offers unparalleled capability for development and
execution of large-scale contracts for solar electric
power stations, along with reliable after-market service.
"Stewart & Stevenson's unique power plant packaging
allows solar power stations to be factory-assembled and
load-tested prior to shipment, reducing the time and
expense of remote installations, and greatly increasing
reliability. Our technology will include open-frame and
sheltered systems for wireless telecommunication
networks, as well as village, industrial and agricultural
power applications. We also intend to develop derivative
products such as fuel cell hybrids, passively-cooled
battery and control shelters, and packaged systems for
water pumping, water desalination, refrigeration, and
ice-making for remote applications.
"Besicorp will lead the product and market development
effort, and Stewart & Stevenson will provide technical
and marketing support, as well as large-scale production
capacity. This collaboration will offer worldwide
capability, both in marketing and after-sale service.
Besicorp is very enthusiastic about building upon our
long and successful relationship with Stewart & Stevenson
with environmentally sound new energy technology."
Stewart & Stevenson, with 1995 sales of $1.2 billion, is
a world leader in packaged power systems for utility,
industrial and independent power markets. Stewart &
Stevenson also provides after-market parts and service as
well as operations and maintenance of electrical power
generation and oil and gas production facilities, with
offices and subsidiary companies in over 26 countries.
Besicorp is an owner and developer of independent power
projects and new energy technologies. Besicorp has major
interests in six operating power plants in New York State
which have 378 Megawatts of generating capacity, and is
developing new power plants in Asia and Latin America.
Through its subsidiary SunWize Energy Systems Inc.,
Besicorp is presently under contract to provide ten
packaged PV-hybrid power systems for applications in New
York State and Mexico.
For customer inquiries or further information, please
contact David Panico of Besicorp at 914/366-7700, Ext.
135 by phone, 914/336-7172 by fax, or e-mail at
bgi@mhv.net.
CONTACT: Besicorp Group Inc. | David Panico | or Karen
Keator | 914/336-7700
[11-14-96 at 10:48 EST, Business Wire]

On 15 Nov 1996 06:39:04 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
> In their fixation with energy as the measure of value, they were
> precursors of the energy religion of today.  I don't think they
> imagined that there was a shortage, however, so they weren't quite as
> dumb.
  All are dumb but me and ye, and I've doubts about ye.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

I must admit a prejudice against "alternative farming systems" based
on arguments that they must be good because the present system is bad.
-- 
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.

In article <19961115211000.QAA29515@ladder01.news.aol.com> atomicrod@aol.com writes:
>Michael Turton stated:
>/*
>The total ground area used by a nuclear power plant is much larger
>than you think.  Your author's ideological biases are open and obvious.
>He "forgot" to include that uranium mining and refining use a great deal
>of
>land and kill miners as well.
>*/
>
	You must also keep in mind that there are very few locations
	where mining of uranium occurs.  And, the number of places
	where refining of uranium occurs can be counted without 
	using ones toes.  The total ground area that is included 
	for the 400+ commercial power plants due to mining and milling
	is relatively minor.  (Especially when compared to that 
	erquired for fossil fuels.)
	Mike
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Baker		   	 baker@groves.neep.wisc.edu 
Engineering Research Bldg., 1500 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706
-------------------------------------------------------------------   

Andrew Russell (arussell@BIX.com) wrote:
> John McCarthy wrote:
> >Nudds is repeating and old half-witted song.
> >
> >The VW Beetle is such a car.  It is still in production in Brazil
> And the Mini is still in production after 37 years.  One of the world's
> legendary fun and efficient cars.  Just not sold in the U.S. since 1967. 
> Much to my regret, as I *still* miss my 1972 Mini 1275GT, which I had to
> sell in Spain in 1975...
Q: Exactly how would I go about obtaining a VW?  I suspect that they cost
a LOT less than most cars do now.  Even at a high import fee(actually not
that bad now with NAFTA), it would be nice to get one new.
Joe

Energy from the Environment.
It is conceded that the extraction and 
conversion of the Thermal Energy (degrees 
absolute) of the environment, to Potential 
Energy, i.e. the ability to perform work, 
is a theory that is generally considered 
unacceptable.
Nevertheless, a proven technique, in another 
field, circumvents the restrictions of the 2nd 
Law of Thermodynamics, without contravening 
them, and offers an unprecedented opportunity 
to secure such an energy conversion, with the 
most profound and immediate future benefit.
The theoretical considerations are unique in 
the energy field, as was the concept of the 
geo-stationary satellite, to it's application, 
and this new concept can actually be 
demonstrated by a currently unexplained, but 
factual example.
This is, specifically, NOT the "heat pump", 
which does realise thermal energy from the 
thermal environment. 
It is, specifically, NOT potential energy 
conversion from existing NATURAL thermal 
gradients, in selected areas,(OTEC).
These new proposals offer conversion within a 
UNIVERSAL environment, where ever the thermal 
capacity of an accessible energy source is 
sufficient to sustain the potential energy 
drain, which is the only limiting factor.
The profound implications of such a 
breakthrough are most obvious to the discerning 
physicist, however it is of particular 
note, that the massive capacity of oceans, to 
absorb and retain, the radiated heat from the 
sun, coupled with Oceans' thermal convection 
and physical flow characteristics, make an 
ideal source of virtually unlimited renewable 
unpolluting energy. 
There are also countless other components in 
the earth's environment which have profound 
practical applications. Not the least important 
in the impending, pollution catastrophe, is  
the transient energy in the ambient air or 
water, of a moving vehicle or vessel.
The conviction that there IS an indirect route, 
via old and largely neglected technology, to 
the realisation of energy from the environment, 
has been met, not unexpectedly, with profound 
derision, impatience and an unwillingness to 
consider such a possibility.
Over many years, however this criticism has 
only served to engender even more effort to
substantiate the conviction.
Now in the evening of his retirement from a 
life time of substantial scientific 
involvement, the author is anxious that the 
perceived value of his concept will not be 
lost.
Access to outline practical proposals setting 
out, a low cost prototype power unit, operating 
on the fore-going principles, will be offered, 
following a full simultaneous international 
disclosure, to selected bona-fide individuals, 
at absolutely minimal obligation.
The technology which is the basis of these
proposals is purely an extension of the natural 
phenomena employed by nature herself, to 
derive the potential energy, (which we 
harvest with wind generators and 
hydroelectric turbines, etc.), from the world 
environment, in the Natural "Water Cycle".
Interested?
keithb@indigo.ie
"Is it conceivable that when God created the
earth, he omitted to provide the human race with
an alternative to suffocating in its own waste?"

Rod Adams  writes:
>The Japanese have never indicated any desire whatsoever to develop 
>military uses of nuclear materials.  It is forbidden within their 
>constitution.
Which doesn't mean that they don't have the desire to develop a
few military uses for their nuclear materials or aren't keeping
their options open. Japan is the only country I can think of 
just off hand without a nuclear program but with a fast breeder.
Many Japanese government have expressed a desire to see their
Constitution change. And in practise it is.
>Based on a long history of economic success in a wide variety of 
>industries, there is little likelyhood that
>the Japanese are simply throwing money away.
Really? Explain their rocket program to me then. I think
the most sensible assumption is that the Japanese are in
fact keeping their options open. They have a long history
of making sure they acquire the right sorts of military 
technologies. Even when this means they spend a lot more
money to build things. They don't source overseas. Looking
at their military hardware programs it is safe to say they
are prepared to throw *lots* of money away. It is a brave
assumption that their nuclear power program does not have a
possible nuclear weapon capacity.
Joseph
--
      "Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Earth"
                        - President Bill Clinton

On Fri, 15 Nov 96 15:29:54 GMT, charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
> In article <3287C39C.2FA0@ilhawaii.net>,
>    Jay Hanson  wrote:
> >jw wrote:
> >
> >-> >If you define "gained in performance" as:
> >-> > "Filling the dump truck with dead babies faster",
> >-> >   then you are right.  See:
> >-> 
> >http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/zaire_goma_dead_30.m
> ov
> >
> >-> (2) as for your horrible phrase
> >-> "Filling the dump truck with dead babies faster" -
> >-> you couldn't be more wrong factually.
> >
> >Why don't you watch the movie?  They are
> >tossing dead babies into a dump truck.
> >
> >This is what you call "progress".
> >
> >Jay
> 
> Does this movie appear on Showtime, HBO, Cinemax, or some 
> other movie channel?
  Such a comment makes me almost give up hope for humanity.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------