Newsgroup sci.energy 56416

Directory

Name calling sure is fun, but it doesn't solve problems.
Statistics prove whatever you want them to prove. Look at the polls.
-- 
Peace.
Frank Tymon, frank@qnet.com; URL http://www.av.qnet.com/~frank/
The Angry Editor of Tymon's Tirades & The Quartz Hill ConnXtion, 
Publisher, Tymon Publications; Proprietor, TYMON'S TRY-B4-BUY BOOKCLUB

gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
> api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
>> In article ,
>>	jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>>> Approximately 7.5 tons of plutonium was put in the atmosphere by the
>>> atmospheric bomb tests.
>> Really puts the 10 pounds in the space probe into perspective.
> considering approx .1 gram of plutonium is enough to posion all of
> New York City. What the hell your dead and can only be killed once.
John stated that approx 7500000 grams of plutonium was released into
the atmosphere and you state that 0.1 grams would poison all of New
York City. How did people survive? Either the 7500000 or 0.1 statement
is wrong and Johns look reasonable.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

The absolute number of malnourished people is down slightly - from 800
million to 700 million.  The objective is to bring it down to 400
million by 2015.
	      This week an expected 100 heads of state and
     government gather in Rome for the U.N. Food and Agriculture
     Organisation's (FAO) World Food Summit to pledge to reduce
     the number of under-nourished to 400 million by 2015.
	      They will agree that the world, with some 800
     million people lacking enough food to meet their basic
     nutritional needs, must act to increase production
     significantly.
The source on which I read it was down slightly is not in accordance
with the above extract from a news story about the Rome food meeting
going on at present.
-- 
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.

It is certainly true that China will provide cheap products for a long
time, but the money China is getting for cheap products will go into
building up its economy, and then Chinese labor won't remain cheap.
It will probably take longer for China than for the four tigers of
East Asia, because the Chinese population is so much larger.
-- 
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 <56i6kd$7gj@service3.uky.edu>, coltom@west.darkside.com (TL 
ADAMS) wrote:
>
>cz725@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jeremy Whitlock) whinned:
>>
>> 
>> The resistance to the idea that solar energy could possibly be more
>> dangerous than nuclear, has a direct analog in the resistance of the
>> religious folk to the idea of evolution.  It contradicts a fundamental
>> belief, and in doing so threatens an entire ideology.
>
>Listen Troll, don't pollute the bandwidth with nonsense and then expect
>a frank and intelligent discussion.  Many of us did point out the
>fallacies in the comparative risk comparison.
>
>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.
This is perfectly true, but so what.
Just because some woolyheads in society have such a twisted perception
(note correct spelling), there is no reason to screw up the whole 
energy sector and much of the economy to accommodate them.
I have a realistic perception of risks, and I am not willing to pay 
one brass razoo extra for the expensive distortions in electricity 
generation imposed by political decisions using the lowest common
denominator in understanding risks.
George Antony

The pre-war Germans made carbohydrates from wood pulp.  The German
word "ersatz" entered the English language as a synonym for a bad
quality substitute.  I don't know how long the Germans continued to
make the stuff.
-- 
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.

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:37:18 GMT, gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>hey stupid the first observable predicted from global warming theory
>was an increase in the number and the severity of storms.
Talk about being off the mark.
My point was that there is no evidence of increased severity of
storms.
Do you understand time series analysis and statistical significance?
Obiously not.
If you had bothered to check any reference, you would realize that
hurricanes (which you mentioned) had a 30 year period of LOW activity
that ended recently. By your logic, that would be proof that global
cooling was happening - in total defiance of the greenhouse theory!
In other words, you are just mouthing crap you read in some hysterical
nonscientific journal like Time, written by a person as clueless as
you are. Anyone who relies on the popular press for scientific
information is going to see continual crises where there are none.
That's how they make their profit, and since reporters are usually
clueless about the methods of science, they are willing to jump on
these "hot stories."
> I think
>however incedental you think the above was, it was a response to some
>dumb shit trying to dismiss global warming by stating that in the past
>the hurricanes were abnormallly low.
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.
Historical evidence of hurricane strength vs yearly temperatures
support Idso, but do not prove his case. They show a negative
correlation between temperatures and hurricane freqiency or intensity,
but are not statistically significant. And that's because the time
series is too low.
Anyway, in any case there was a drought. If you don't believe me, go
check out on the net and it will match my case.
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.
>he was wrong just like you. Now
>everything I listed above is a statistically significant event. 
Yeah, right. Would you care to explain where you came up with this
"statistical significance?" I can't figure out if you are responding
out of ignorance or dishonesty.
>>Wow, record high and low temps and tornados.
>
>>Obviously, however, newer data shows that an ice age is just around
>>the corner! Look at the record weather in Cleveland if you don't
>>believe me.
>
>>Sheesh!
>
>
What? No asinine comments? You must have forgotten.

In article <328c7ceb.419297@news2.ibm.net>, behambu@ibm.net (Berthold 
Hamburger) wrote:
>
>"Mike Asher"  wrote:
>
>>It's a matter of scale.  The chances of an injury while washing one 
glass
>>pane are minor.  The chances of injury from washing 5 million square 
meters
>>of glass, all of it elevated and tilted at odd angles, are high.  The
>>chances of injury for ten million homeowners to climb onto their roofs
>>every week are enormous, which is why falls are ALREADY responsible for
>>twenty thousand deaths per year in the country.  
>
>I think one important aspect is completely left out here. 
>
>If I decide to climb on my roof for whatever reason, than this is MY
>business and problem. Unless I fall on anyones head, I will not affect
>the life of other people by falling from my roof.
Wrong, unless you pay fully for your medical expenses.
The way the current health system works in most developed countries 
is that medical costs of people are cross-subsidized by others.  This 
spreads risks, everybody pays an average contribution whether using the 
system or not, and people in need get healed without having to pay the
actual costs.
Now, if people start falling off rooftops in significant numbers, this
will increase total medical costs and push up the contributions collected
even from those who have no part in this nonsense.  
So, potential roofcleaners should stay put on their bums, since I find
having to pay larger health contributions merely to bring a warm inner 
glow into their hearts very objectionable.  
George Antony

You have to remember that nuclear power was once just a research project
as well.  However, I like nuclear power and believe that they are the best
current method of generating power.  It has gotten a bad review over the
years and this needs to be corrected.
The U.S. needs to increase its funding of advanced fission reactors and
adopt a policy of reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel instead of burying
in the ground for prosperity.l 

On 15 Nov 1996 17:57:28 GMT, api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
wrote:
>In article <328dc2a6.567423812@news.primenet.com>,
>	ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) writes:
>>Where nuclear makes sense (and this was where we started in this
>>thread) is if you need to reduce CO2 emissions. I am not convinced
>>that we have to, but we might.  Otherwise efficient natural gas
>>provides the lowest known cost of energy.
>>
>>I will also be interesting to see what happens with power competition,
>>because of the huge investment in all sorts of inefficient centralized
>>plants - coal, fuel oil and nuclear. If we just turn competition
>>loose, those facilities will go bankrupt, which will really cream the
>>markets. On the other hand, competition will *probably* produce much
>>lower prices to industry (but probabaly higher costs to consumers).
>
>Competition creates higher cost to consumers?  I think not.  How much does
>a Pentium microprocessor cost now compared to when it was introduced.  The
>computer industry is one of the least regulated and most fiercly competitive
>industries, so it is an excellent example of competitive capitalism in action.
>Price goes down, quality goes up.
Please consider the specific special case here, which is far from the
free market. Today consumers are substantially subsidized by utility
rate setting. With deregulation, the producers of energy (as opposed
the distributors) are free to adjust their prices in conformance with
the market. The most significant early impact may be to lower prices
on bulk consumers (ie, big businesses of certain kinds) and raise them
for individual consumers, who are significantly more expensive to
service. We can hope that in the long run the competition and
separation of production from monopoly distribution will produce
efficiencies enough that we all win. I believe that in the long run
that is exactly what will happen.
To use your analogy, if I as an individual go buy a chip (as I often
do), I will pay more than someone with a bigger buy. This is normal.
Also, please understand... I am not passing a value judgement here. I
am in general in favor of deregulation.
Of course I have a personal, selfish motive to oppose it (as opposed
to my ideological reason to support it): as an owner of a large house
in Phoenix, AZ area, I have a very high electric usage and could not
tolerate a very big rate increase.
But that's neither here nor there... it just whets my interest in the
subject :-)
>I have an idea regarding biomass:  Why do big companies, freeway medians, etc.
>need mowed lawns?  Why not just allow unused areas to grow wild and then send
>around a truck to gather biomass?  That way, all these unused areas could act
>as a large solar collector (and would also contribute to preserving
>biodiversity).
How about just harvesting the grass clippings... probably as
efficient... except here in arizona where we have cactus in our
medians, etc.
My problem with biomass is the amount of space required, and the
amount of water, fertilizer, etc, and frankly, the environmental
impact of it all. If we were to go to biomass in the short run, I
think we would be suffering known and significant costs and
environmental impact, in order to maybe help in the future.
I consider farming to be the biggest environmental impact in the US in
a historical sense. The entire midwest used to be wild land, but today
it is hard to find any wilderness at all except in mountainous regions
like the ozarks.
>
>>Hydrogen has to come from somewhere. It is best produced by
>>electrolysis (I think) and then you have to produce the power for the
>>hydrogen, Hydrogen is most likely to be a good fuel for remote or
>>mobile engines and generators (such as cars - on the high likelyhood
>>that adequate battery technology will not be developed). 
>
>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.
I agree. I know that you can lyse water into H2 and O2 using
radiation, but I don't know if that makes sense as a production
technology. Otherwise, the nuclear->heat->steam->dynamo is still a
good thing.
However, nuclear has proven to be expensive, and although
overregulation and environmentalist extremist opposition is part of
the cost, there is still a lot more: decomissioning costs, complex
equipment that needs space launch levels of reliability, disposal
costs.
>Forgot geothermal and hydroelectric, but those are only available in select
>areas.
I know. And geothermasl is difficult to tap, although I have met a guy
who made tons of money with it near China Lake, CA.

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.

masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>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.
This is clear as mud.  I still don't know what the hell Yuri's
economism is, but Mason's "political economics" has nothing to do with
politics and economics.  It is just another word for tribalism as far
as I can see from the, uh, explanation above.
                                   -dlj.

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.
John,
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.
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.
                                    -dlj.
[On the earlier question, what ever happened to the input output
matrices of Leontieff, I suspect the answer is they died of irrelevant
categorism.  Once when I was an auto parts manufacturer I sat
surveying my factory floor and added up the services going on: the
fork lifts carrying out transportation services, the stockers working
in warehousing services, the machinists doing polishing and grinding
services, etc. etc.  For any economy larger than a chemical plant, the
categories on an input-output matrix don't mean a goddam thing. -dlj.]

On 16 Nov 1996 02:53:37 GMT, dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
> 
> >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.
>  
> This is clear as mud.  I still don't know what the hell Yuri's
> economism is, but Mason's "political economics" has nothing to do with
> politics and economics.  It is just another word for tribalism as far
> as I can see from the, uh, explanation above.
>  
>                                    -dlj.
OK, I'll need to expand a bit.  Take Bosnia.  The muslims, descendants
of the Ottoman empire, occupied the cities, the Serbs the countryside.
OK, OK, many exceptions.  But the overall pattern was and is as stated.
When Yugoslavia broke up and the Slovenes, Croats, and then the 
Bosnians (Muslims) (tribe) ceceded, the Serbs countryfolk (tribe) found 
themselves threatened by the dominance of the relatively affluent Muslim
(tribe) minority in Bosnia.  These tribes had been living in peace together 
under the control of Tito.  During that time the Muslim minority did not rule 
Yugoslavia or Bosnia.  The new Bosnia would have been ruled by that 
minority (and still may be). 
The revolt of the Serbs and attempt to drive the Muslims was revolt of 
the majority against the ruling minority.  The rule was political; the 
consequence of that rule was economic in the relative affluence of the
Muslims.  Politics and economics are Siamese twins - not separable.
Too often this is forgotten in theories of either, hence I much prefer the
term "political economics" and it has an honorable history.
I will post more examples of political economic revolts and the history 
of the term if there is need here.  Always eager for an opening.
---------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------

api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
>In article ,
>	jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>>Approximately 7.5 tons of plutonium was put in the atmosphere by the
>>atmospheric bomb tests.
>Really puts the 10 pounds in the space probe into perspective.
considering approx .1 gram of plutonium is enough to posion all of New
York City. What the hell your dead and can only be killed once.

keithb says;
Energy from the Environment.
> 
> It is conceded that the extraction and conversion of the
> Thermal Energy ( K) of the environment, to Potential...
....and so on.  I could have sworn he was going to ask me to send only 
$11.95 for a free book, or something.

Rod Adams wrote:
> Please tell me, where are solar power systems (no matter which
> configuration you choose) most effective?  Answer: they are most
> effective in areas where there is a lot of sunshine and minimal
> rain, aka deserts.  Please do not tell us that you think that
> such places do not have any problems with dust or sand storms.
Solar power systems are most effective under conditions of high light
intensity. However, even under heavy cloud cover and pollution, the
incident radiation that is accessible to silicon-based photovoltaics is
80% of the irradiance accessible from the full solar spectrum, since the
band gap of silicon is small enough to absorb even low-energy radiation.
> Will, do you really think that the rooftops of New York City, (or
> Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington D. C. or any
> other large city) would be an appropriate place for massive solar
> power development?  Do you really think that they are properly located
> in sunbelts or in areas where the sun is direct and not filtered by
> pollution and clouds?  
Yes. See above.

Ariadna A Solovyova wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a student from Kazakhstan, a former Soviet Union republic, whose
> residents now suffer from fuel shortages. Many of my friends in Almaty
> (the capital of Kazakhstan) have been cooking on fire for a few weeks.
> 
> I've found some exciting info and plans for solar cookers and will send
> them to my friends; I will also travel there soon and deliver materials
> that are hard to obtain there. Almaty is one of the sunniest cities in the
> former SU, so solar energy has a great potential there.
> 
> I need more information about all kinds of solar devices (especially those
> which could be used by apartment dwellers), as well as efficient (and,
> preferably, easy to construct) woodstoves. Also, any advice on what people
> could do to help themselves in this situation would be very welcome. I
> would be thankful for pointers to books, magazines, WWW sites, mailing
> lists, commercial sources, and especially plans and designs that could be
> used to construct needed devices.
> 
> The worst problem there is cooking and water heating, since most people
> have gas stoves, and natural gas supplies have been cut off. However,
> electricity and central heating have recently been down several times as
> well. So if anyone knows where I could get portable generators that run on
> something else than natural gas (alcohol? kerosene?), portable electric
> stoves, or anything else of that sort, please contact me!
> 
> If you represent a company that supplies any of those things, I could help
> you make business contacts with companies and US agencies in Almaty if you
> are interested.
> 
> Thank you very much in advance!
> 
> Ari Solovyova
You should read Home Power, a very good magazine that describes all
sorts of alternative energy devices...send an email to:
hp@homepower.org.  The magazine is probably in the library.
good luck

On 15 Nov 1996 22:57:10 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> It relieves me that in arguing with Mason Clark I am not arguing with
> the economics profession as a whole. 
> 
Again I must protest a misconception.
There is NO "economics profession as a whole" !
If there was, we wouldn't be here.
---------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------

Let's talk about marketing. 
Do You really think, that You don't need marketing?
Go out to the street and ask the people on the street.
1.) Do You know what Phatovoltaic is?
2.) Have You experience with Photovoltaic beyond 
     the application at a pocket calculator?
This test will bring You the total proov! You need marketing!
The best product will be discovered by only a few customers, 
if there is no marketing.
I am founder of PEGE - Planetary Engineering Group Earth.
I was able to conquer place 1 to 4 when You ask the famouse
search engine Alta Vista for "Photovoltaic" two weeks after my
first Internet session.
Please visit my site http://members.magnet.at/pege/ to see what I
could do for the *** Photovoltaic world market ###.
I will create with nearly no money new products. I can create this
new products with nearly no money, not without money.
*** SoCo Solar Comfort ###, *** Nomad Magic ###
When I have success, Photovoltaic world market will increase greatly
and the people from the street will know "Photovoltaic" as good as 
"airbag".
Let's talk about a concertedly marketing effort.
You decide:
	Will the Nomad Magic motorhome air-conditioned by 
	500 W Peak Photovoltaic be shown the first time at the
	14th European Photovoltaic conference in Barcelona or not.
We need IN applications for Photovoltaic. We need applications
for the Photovoltaic where the live of a Yuppie has no sense,
when he does not have it. 
For most people is Photovoltaic something boring technical.
So we need somebody interesting enough to talk hours about him.
See *** Fight for the sun ### - The unbeliveable adventures of an inventor 
on my site.
That are all common marketing methods in other types of business.
Belive me, You need it even more than all the other types of business.
best regards
-- 
pege@magnet.at
http://members.magnet.at/pege/
Chevalier Mösl Roland - founder of PEGE -
Planetary Engineering Group Earth
Fischer v.Erlachstr43/508 A-5020 Salzburg
Clear targets for a confused civilization

gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) banged out:
>api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
>>In article <56ecvi$tjh@news2.lakes.com>,
>>	gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) writes:
>>>nice try at being a spin doc but you failed. As this past season was
>>>proof as the first huuricane of the season proved.Going back to the
>>>beginning of the century there are only 3 other cases of a hurricane
>>>hitting the mainland that early. But the fact of the matter is
>>>hurricanes are not the only storms to be considered.Looking back over
>>>the past year for this location(so. Minnesota) we had record cold and
>>>hight temps last winter, july brought a record rainfall 8 inches in 24
>>>hrs,record high and low temps in oct along with 2 torandos in Oct a
>>>very highly unusal event.
>>Correlation does not equal causation.  You must prove that increased CO2
>>concentrations have led to this weather, rather than it just being a natural
>>strange weather pattern.  Strange weather patterns have occurred before there
>>was this much fossil-fuel burning going on.
>one of the first observables predicted for global warming is an
>increase in storms
Makes sense,  Adding energy to a closed system should increase
turbulence.  Wider variance in temperature and icreased range would
show up sooner than actual definable rise in global temperature.
Sounds reasonable to this layman.
Van
--
************************************************************
        SCREW the EPA!!    SCREW OSHA!!
Mark them oxygen canisters empty and ship 'em!
************************************************************

Karen or George wrote:
> 
....
  After all, economics seems to be the one professional
> area that anybody knows perfectly well without any qualifications.
I note:
That and ecology...

>=20
> Many countries experimented with condensation locomotives, but I know=20
> only about two types built in numbers:
>=20
> The Germans built a version of their BR52 war locomotive (Decapod) with=
=20
> condenser tender to use them in the Russian desert. The goal was not to=
=20
> increase the efficiency but to save water in the desert. Some of them=20
> survived after the WW2, but were changed for normal tenders after a=20
> while.=20
>=20
> In South Africa there were condenser steamers built in the '50s to serve=
=20
> in the deserts. AFAIK they were the only succesful condenser steam=20
> locomotives.
>=20
> Janos Ero
>=20
Hanschal in Germany solf some condensing steam locomotives to Argentina=20
before WW II. Nothing more is known to me about them. The German 52Kon=20
locomotives came too late. When they were delivered, the area where the=20
Germans wanted to use them was not in German hands any more. Becuase=20
maintenance of these locos was more expensive, they were rebuilt into=20
normal machines. Also these were developed and delivered by Hanschal. The=
=20
next, and last, series was the type 25 for South Africa. They were=20
rebuil=BFt into noncondensing after their line (West of De Aar) was dieseli=
zed.
Hans Schaefer

sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote:
>On 15 Nov 1996  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.
>
>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?
The fact that something is familiar does not make it true.  Hitler did
not invent German or Polish antisemitism, and the Holocaust took place
mainly in 1938-42, when the economy was in fine shape, thanks to the
war build-up and Nazi victories.  Even the late stages, the Hungarian
Holocaust of 1944-45, took place in a country spared from both war and
depression at the time.
                                  -dlj.

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.  See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
for further information.
Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
# Written/Edited by:
     Robert F. Heeter
     
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
# Last Revised February 26, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Contents
  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project
* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.
* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
* 4) How to Use the FAQ:
  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.
* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  
  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************
(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)
Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History
Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power
Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding
Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)
Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
Section 6 - Recent Results
Section 7 - Educational Opportunities
Section 8 - Internet Resources
Section 9 - Future Plans
Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List
Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements
Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z
---------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************
* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)
   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html
   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq
* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups
  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.
  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 
* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):
   Several Web versions now exist.
   The "official" one is currently at
     
   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      () soon.
   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:
 
 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.
 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)
* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro
  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:
    
  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 
  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.
  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.
* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)
  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.
* 5) Mail Server
   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit
   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.
* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 
  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.
  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.
  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Written FAQ Sections:
  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.
  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.
   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***
* 2) Building a Web Version
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 
  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.
* 4) Status of the Glossary:
 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.
 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.
 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)
 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.
 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.
 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)
Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:
[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]
Belgium
-------
  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs
Canada
------
  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70
Finland
-------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm
France
------
  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
Germany
-------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP
Korea
-----
  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers
Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers
The Netherlands
---------------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl
Sweden
------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet
Switzerland
-----------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"
Taiwan
------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw
United Kingdon
--------------
  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/
United States
-------------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html

In a previous article, eflahert@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Edward Flaherty) says:
>"Mike Asher"  writes:
>> 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.
>
>The book must have been sponsored by Montgomery Burns.
>
>Excellent.
>Edward Flaherty		 	Web Site:
I'd often wondered if some anti-nukes got their opinions from cartoons.
-- 
      Karl Johanson,  Victoria B.C. Canada
-It's okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you're
wrong you're supposed to become enlightened & change your mind.
Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.

Magnus Redin wrote:
> 
....
> 
> John stated that approx 7500000 grams of plutonium was released into
> the atmosphere and you state that 0.1 grams would poison all of New
> York City. How did people survive? Either the 7500000 or 0.1 statement
> is wrong and Johns look reasonable.
> 
> Regards,
> 
I note:
One of the interesting brainbites I got while working on the NASA 
space station was the problem with local accumulation of CO2.  As long 
as it remained dispersed everything was ok - the problem was little 
dings in the internal air flow pattern which could allow a bubble to 
form - perhaps in the sleeping chamber of some astronaut, and this 
could be hazardous.  Anyone looking at just the mean composition of 
the internal atmosphere wouldn't notice any problem.  One really has 
to be careful with statistics.

In article , steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk 
(Steinn Sigurdsson) wrote:
>
>antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) writes:
>> FAIR trade would be a good start.  Just about every economist in the 
>> world will tell you that it is totally predictable that the EU's
>> totally irresponsible agricultural production and trade practices
>> are screwing up the whole world's agricultural systems, with 
corresponding
>> resource implications.
>> 
>> To force the EU to cease and desist, the sheepishly ignorant and 
uninterested
>> EU citizenry ought to force their own politicians to find less 
internationally
>> destructive ways of mollycoddling a small rural population.  If you read 
>> around a little you may even find that this is the very thing the IMF 
would 
>> recommend too.
>
>However, from conversation I have some understanding of
>why the Common Agricultural Policy is as it is - and it
>is changing, slowly, with excess subsidised production
>decreasing - but, there are two non-trade factors at
>work here: there is the issue of security of food supply,
>most of the EU countries have acute memories still
>of the first half of the century and few would like to
>be in a position of possible mass starvation should there
>be future political upheaval or war, so they subsidise
>local, inefficient producers, to have a local production
>base for security; there is also the issue of land control,
>historically if you allow rural regions to depopulate
>you lose them, 
These are all true and indeed clear to those who studied
EU agricultural policy.
Strictly speaking, however, solving the perceived problems
the way they are being solved is very much a trade issue,
as the costs are partly exported to everyone around the
globe.
The whole approach smacks of hypocrisy, though.  Ensuring 
Europe's food security at the expense of Africa's, for
example, and wanting to preserve the neat rural country-
side in its pristine condition (i.e., denuded forest) 
while lecturing the Brazilians why they should not clear
forests for agricultural land.
George Antony

Very few things in nature can be modeled using a linear equation, why
should radiation health effects be any different.  I have seen data from
several different sources (mice, WWII victims, etc).  The data points do
not behave in a linear relationship as Bier V states - it really is quite
blatent.  The fact that they continue to use Bier V is a travesty.  If you
are skeptical, repeat the experiments, graph the data points and let the
computer do a simple best fit of the data.  From what I have seen, the
results will not be a linear relationship.

CARB will not allow you to buy a VW in Mexico and bring it into 
California because it does not meet 1996 pollution standards.  
However, I have been told that if you drive an old VW into Mexico, you 
can have it rebuilt.  

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:45:21 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>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.
Any efficient economic system requires reallocation of productive
resources, including workers. That is what is happening. Also,
employess are getting more and more expensive, between increasing
government mandated spending (per employee) and rising costs of
healthcare.
I would also point out that there are many consultants out there who
are filling these slots, and they make a lot more than employees. We
have used many of these people in a true free market voluntary
transaction - we both benefit - they aren't oppressed and we aren't
coerced.
Thos who imagine that society can provide jobs for everyone are sadly
wrong.

Rod Adams wrote:
> Please tell me, where are solar power systems (no matter which
> configuration you choose) most effective?  Answer: they are most
> effective in areas where there is a lot of sunshine and minimal
> rain, aka deserts.  Please do not tell us that you think that
> such places do not have any problems with dust or sand storms.
Solar power systems are most effective under conditions of high light
intensity. However, even under heavy cloud cover and pollution, the
incident radiation that is accessible to silicon-based photovoltaics is
80% of the irradiance accessible from the full solar spectrum, since the
band gap of silicon is small enough to absorb even low-energy radiation.
> Will, do you really think that the rooftops of New York City, (or
> Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington D. C. or any
> other large city) would be an appropriate place for massive solar
> power development?  Do you really think that they are properly located
> in sunbelts or in areas where the sun is direct and not filtered by
> pollution and clouds?  
Yes. See above.

Yes, we have received a large amount of oil from Kuwait, but we also paid
for every  barrel of it after we restored a dictatorship to power.  But
Saddam is still around and the region is still unstable.  How many wars
are left to be fought just to preserve our precious oil supply.  For that
matter, think of all of the Desert Storm veterans who were exposed to low
levels of chemical weapons.  Their health have most likely been
permanently affected by this exposure - what would have happened if Iraq
had used chemical weapons in combat.  They had and supposedly still have a
considerable supply of these weapons.   Israel has nuclear weapons, what
would have happened had Iraq used chemical weapons against them?  I just
don't believe that oils price in terms of environmenal damage, dollars and
human lives is worth the cost. Period.

On 15 Nov 1996 15:09:35 -0500, mikep@comshare.com (Mike Pelletier)
wrote:
>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.
I don't know about that. I thought NG already has some hydrogen in it,
but I'm not sure.
I do know that it would be an enormous capital investment:
  -hydrolysis faciloities
  -transport (even if you are wrong)
  -conversion of vehicles and other thermal engines
  -conversion of filling stations
Also, I know you can store NG in vehicles in a practical way (under
high pressure). I don't know if you can store enough Joules of H2
without safety hazards, a large amount of space, and expensive
hydrides.
We just had a hydrogen accident here in Phoenix. A tanker truck was
delivering H2 to an industrial facility. It caught fire (an invisible
fire, BTW) and threatened to explode. A large area had to be evacuated
for over 24 hours.
Gas is dangerous, and so is hydrogen, but hydrogen requires different
precautions.

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:43:15 GMT, gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com
(gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>johnie boore min erupts in shit once again
Obviously you are writing as a scholar, to judge by your language and
blatant attempt to insult.
You are deserving of pity... and scorn.
>>>Correlation does not equal causation.  You must prove that increased CO2
>>>concentrations have led to this weather, rather than it just being a natural
>>>strange weather pattern.  Strange weather patterns have occurred before there
>>>was this much fossil-fuel burning going on.
>
>>First you have to prove that the *climate* is significantly different,
>>which he failed to do.
>
>hey stupid do you know anything about the global warming theory.
I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do. Your paucity of
knowledge is displayed both by the errors in your posts and in your
debating style, which consists of hurling childish insults but not
providing any form of covent argument.
You may go in my kill shortly. 
>>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.
Sigh. I am embarrassed for you. I really am. Your statement above
could only come from a graduate of the american public education
system, or a member of the press. Or, from an agent provocateur.
>yup you are a damn good example of that. Absolutely no science/math
>background
Yeah, that explains why I am the Chief Technology Officer in my
corporation, and have worked in scientific research in three widely
different fields.

Things that are worthwhile are never easy and much work remains to be
done.  However, I find it difficult to put much confidence in cost
estimates for building / operating a fusion power plant when its final
design has not been completed.

In article <56jhmv$io6@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> "J. Russell Lemon"  writes:
 > 
 > CARB will not allow you to buy a VW in Mexico and bring it into 
 > California because it does not meet 1996 pollution standards.  
 > 
 > However, I have been told that if you drive an old VW into Mexico, you 
 > can have it rebuilt.  
 > 
 > 
This is an additional reason why basic cars aren't built.  Meeting
safety and environmental standards add a larger fraction to the cost
of a basic car than to a present day car.  Anyway used cars are the
best buys.
-- 
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.

Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> 
> conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
> 
> >Bob Falkiner (falkiner@interlog.com) wrote:
> ...
> >: New cars are clean, and tend to stay clean because of the computerized
> >: controls.
> 
> This thread exists because nobody wants to define "clean",
> they are much cleaner than they were, but still not "clean" as
> in not contributing pollutants.
> 
> >This is a misconception.  First, the overall design of a modern sensor/
> >computer equipped automobile requires maintenance skills, equipment,
> >and knowledge far exceeding capabilities of the average mechanic and
> >automobile repair establishment.
ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THIS IS TRUE - over half the existing car population 
on the road owned by you, me, my friends and neighbours etc are the 
kind of cars you are referring to.   They are being maintained quite
well thank you very much.  The statement is simply rediculous.
> 
> Not as far as I'm aware. All new vehicles have to show that with the
> recommended routine maintenance, the vehicle can attain the Federal
> or State limits at 160,000 km or 10 years, with in-use compliance at
> 120,000km or 7 years. The standards include things like deterioration
> factors referenced to the 6,400km measurements, and are measured
> every 8,000km on the way to the final point. Major changes, like replacing
> emissions control system components, were not permitted, but with
> the new on-board diagnostics (OBD-II) requirement, that may have
> changed.
> 
> >Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have done.  When we
> >legislate requirements that force the sale of unmaintainable
> >(because of their complexity) vehicles, we shoot ourselfs and
> >our neighbors in the foot, while magnifying profit of the auto
> >manufacturers.
> 
> No. The manufacturers have to show their system will not
> deteriorate faster than the factors in the regulations, right
> up to the final test.
>
I agree!  Average or median deterioration in use is quite low and
relatively predictable. Governments really have to re-think how
they regulate this, because after achieving the first 90% reduction
the next 90% reduction requires a different set of rules!!
The median emissions in a IM240 survey that I was involved in was 
0.11 gm/mi HC for 94-96 cars, and there was no significant 
observable mileage effect. 
> >: Old cars are dirty, and tend to get dirtier with age without computer
> >: controls.
> >No.  Today, old cars today are primarily computer controlled cars where
> >the sensor and computer system is no longer maintainable and has, more
> >likely than not, had these components essentially disabled.
> 
> I'm not sure that this is true, it's hard to disable the system and still
> maintain driveability. There is tampering, but from the limited amount
> I've read, that is mainly to enhance performance, rather than deliberately
> disable systems to avoid costly repairs, besides I&M; and Remote
> Sensing can identify many such vehicles. Remote sensing is an
> indicator only, it should never have been mandated as a pass/fail test,
> most of the people using it could have told California that.
> 
> The arrival of OBD will make it more difficult for people continue to drive
> vehicles with defective emssions control equipment. The problem is more that
> the driving cycles used in the tests no longer ( if they ever did ) reflect the
> driving pattern of drivers, and this being addressed with the proposed changes
> to the Federal Test Procedure.
> 
> >: 2 cycle engines are very dirty and tend to get very very dirty.
> 
> No. This is no longer true. In fact,  the Australian Orbital  Engine
> Company's ULEV 1.5L engine  ( being seriously considered by major
> manufacturers, and the  basis for the GM CDS-2 experimental
> power plant ) is a two stroke. Orbital already have a plant in the
> USA at Tecumseh making similar smaller engines for outboard
> marine, recreational and lawnmowing applications. The orbital
> engine meets the ULEV requirement, as have several 4-strokes
> recently.
>
so how many orbitals are in actual use right now???????
I'm not trying to denigrate the orbital or any other research project
now under way, but I'm talking about what is on the street now.
I could say the same thing about any 4 cycle with or without oxidation
catalyst.  
> >: so.... if you own a brand new car and an old lawn mower, they are now
> >: about equivalent in the overall pollution equation.
> >Citation please.  This sounds like a claim from someone that is either
> >incapable of or unwilling to make meaningful comparisons.
> 
THe comparison has already been made and is well documented.  
I am both capable and willing to make meaningful comparisons, and you
will have to get your head around the existance of engines/vehicles on 
the road that differ in emissions by more than 2 orders of magnitude. My 
10 hour per day vs 1 hr per day for a gross emitter vs a clean commuter 
car blows this out beyond 3 orders of magnitude.
If you want a quick mass balance lesson, take a 1:20 mix, run it for an
hour in a lawn mower, and compare that to your car. Then come back to me
and we'll have another discussion about mass balances.
> Somewhere on the WWW I also found this claim on the page of a
> US regulatory body ( wasn't an automaker, where I would have
> expected it :-) )  perhaps a branch of the EPA. I suspect it could
> well be true ( especially if using the driving cycle data for a smaller
> car - not  certain about a large, as the VOCs and Particulates from
> such engines are high - the ones here don't even have PCV - which
> was huge source of emissions, and are tuned for maximum power
> ( slightly rich ).
> 
> >: or  ... if you own an old van delivering things 10 hours per day, it is
> >: the equivalent of about 5000 new cars in a typical commuter driving
> >: cycle.
> >You're either dreaming, or confusing an old van with a typical city
> >operated diesel bus!  :-)
>
not dreaming in any colour.....  this is a straight mass balance. take a
gross emitter at 20 gm/mi HC and multiply it out yourself!!!
> Possibly, but consider the following  from 'Still Smoggy after all these
> years" P.Bedard. p.105-115 April 1995 Car and Driver.
> 
> " One reseacher, who asked not
> to be identified because he didn't want to get politically crosswise with
> California's regulatory community, spoke of "half-pounders and quarter
> pounders" for CO, cars so dirty they emit a half-pound or quarter-pound
> of CO per mile. In a day when new cars must emit less than 0.00075
> pound per mile, the worst of these gorillas emits its own weight of CO in
> a year of driving. The same researcher spoke of " one-ouncers" for HC,
> cars that emit one ounce of HC per mile of driving. a one-ouncer chuffs
> out 22,500 % more HC than a Transitional Low Emission Vehicle (TLEV),
> a California new-car standard being phased in starting last year."
> 
> Even real world remote sensing studies by Stedman have shown that
> removing 47 gross polluters would have more effect than removing
> 2,500 of the least polluting cars from the fleet of over 7,000 they
> measured  in 1991-2. With the more stringent 1996 regulations, maybe
> that number has grown significantly.
> 
> >:The consumer and government demand has
> >: been for reduced tailpipe emissions.  Now that 20 years of government
> >: bureaucracy has been built around this, how do we declare success, even
> >: after that we've achieved it??
> >Are you joking?  (If LA is the laboratory, the experiment was a decided
> >failure.
> 
> The experiment failed solely because the regulators failed to perform the
> proper measurements  ( wrong driving cycle, failure to target gross
> polluters, failure to inhibit tampering, failure to promote appropriately-sized
> ICVs, hybrids etc etc.). They designed their experiment with prejudice, thus it
> failed.
> 
> They believed that EVs would be their  salvation, thus they didn't seriously
> bother about designing ICV control procedures, and consequently
> aggrevating ICV owners, who are also voters. Now that some of
> the strongest EV proponents have been eliminated or marginalised,
> maybe CARB will correctly design the experiment. Until a viable battery
> is found, EVs are destined to be a niche product.
> 
>           Bruce Hamilton
When Emissions reach ULEV values the urban problems will vanish, and we
will still be left with this massive beurocracy to support.