Newsgroup sci.energy 56169

Directory

D.F.S.  wrote:
>In sci.energy jforest@ionet.net wrote:
>> me@myown.net wrote:
snip
>> the service. I have installed and maintained 10 UPS ranging from 1kw
>> single phase to 30 kw 3 phase unit, and if used as I described they
for the record this doesn't make me an expert
snip
Most of the larger (>1kw) ups installed were "BEST" ups systems, they
use a constant voltage transformer as part of the ups system, as long
as the input voltage was between 80-105% (IIRC) the dc-ac side of the
ups was not on line.
>A "TRUE" UPS IS on and running all the time, a backup unit comes online
>when needed.
>A True UPS takes AC in, makes it DC, and charges the batteries and runs
>the output from that DC power thus the inverter IS always on, Running and
>supplies all the output power 100% of the time.
>Some like the 6 Kw units I have will allow you to:
>Select the output voltage range 110, 208, 220 and vary it +/- 20 Volts.
>Make single or 3 phase power at any of the voltages regardless of the
>input.
>You can also set the output frequency.
>Mine also has a serial port interface with hundreds of parameters
>Including input/output voltage, frequency, and current,
>Battery status, remaining capacity at current load, battery voltage
>and temperature of the batteries and 4 other locations I think.
>These are the type of UPS units many mainframe and mini computer
>centers are pulling out of service. They are designed for continous
>service with close tolerances.
>The small cheap PC type units may or may not be a true online UPS,
>so check this out.
>Marc
The BEST system was capable of the type of data output as you
described, which really helped me out as I had several located
anywhere fron 5-100 miles away, so I could check the system of the
system by data link.
We may be straying away from the orginal intent of the posting, all I
was trying to say was that for long term power usage UPS are not
really designed for that use, (they can be used, but should they?)
they should be used for no break power for a conrolled shutdown
situation or untill backup generator comes on line. Any problem with
this?
jim

Extremely Right (99@spies.com) wrote:
: There is a presupposition by the left, a dialectical argument, that the
: choice is between "saving the environment" or "destroying it." This is
: false reasoning.  Who wants to live in their own waste? The REAL extreme
: rhetoric is from the eco-socialist left and the Republicans are left
: arguing without a mainstream media microphone. ###8up
You forgot to include the "Wise Use" movement in your fair and
even-handed list of extremists.
--
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/

Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
: >John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: [edited]
: >: My Web pages
: >: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ deal at length with the
: >: sustainability of progress.  It discusses 15 billion people at
: >: American standards.
: >
: >What happens when (not if) we get 30?
: Why do you say "when"?  There is increasing evidence the world's
: population will not double again.  Primarily, I think, because of
: increasing wealth.
: The best predictor of population stability is the societies wealth.
: The society with access to wealth and education is the society with
: the lower birth rate.  What we need to do is try to increase the
: standard of living of the world.
Apply this model to increasingly industrialising China of the 12th
Century and you'd be wrong.  When a culture becomes better at providing
energy and therefore more food, it usually responds by creating more
children.  The only reason this isn't being done in Europe today is
space, eg, most people who want children or more of them actually don't
because they can't afford it.  The expense of living space is the
reason.
--
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/

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: Side note:  genetic engineers are already discussing the possibility of an
: organism which could efficiently extract fresh water from salt.  Of course,
: Greenpeace wants to ban all such activity.
I'd like to hear more about this.
--
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/

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

ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> 
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> 
> [deletions: use of the CPI to measure the price of fish]
> 
> : What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
> : That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
> : people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
> : Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
> : (to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
> : Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
> : Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
> : up as a rise in the cost of "fish", 
> Conceptually, this should not be an increase in the price of fish,
> and should not show up in the CPI.  If it does, it would be 
> because the BLS made a mistake.
> This issue is hardly confined to fish; the BLS takes great pains
> to ensure that the bundle of goods is the same in both years.
> The case you describe sounds very easy, compared to, say, 
> cars or medical care.  I would be incredibly surprised 
> if the BLS couldn't tell the difference between Mackerel
> filets and Lousiana Spice Mackerel.
> 
> Consider an example:
> 
>       Boring Fish        Fancy Fish
>       Price Quantity     P    Q          Fish Index
> 1995  2     20           10   1          100  
> 1996  2     20           9    10         98   = 100 * (2*20+9*1)/(2*20+10*1) 
> 1997  2     20           8    20         90.5 = 98  * (2*20+8*10)/2*20+9*10)
> 
> You seem to think that the index will rise because people are buying 
> so much more of the expensive kind of fish.  It won't.  It will
> fall because the fancy fish is getting cheaper.
I'm sorry, but since when does rising demand equate
to lower prices?!
How about
	BF		FF		FI
	p	q	p	q
1995    2	20	10	1	100
1996    2	15	11	5	170
1997    2	10	12	11	178(since1996)
					304(since 1995)			
Constant demand for the bulk goods, but
the value added to the fancy fish causes demand,
corresponding price rise, and the mean index,
counting just "fish" rises sharply with no
rise in aggregate demand of the raw commodity,
and no shortage of the raw commodity. 
In fact the price of Boring Fish could fall to 0
and there would still be an apparent rise in the 
Fish Index.

In article <56dq06$pcr@news.asu.edu>,   wrote:
>Try GM.  They happen to have on out on the market, called and EV-1, or 
>an impact.  They're well on their way to being a common sight on the streets.
>
If you live in Phoenix.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
....
> 
> This must mean that a lot of population models (nonlinear ones with
> temporally intermittent behaviour) will have no carrying capacity.
> 
> Right?
> 
I note:
What continually amazes me is the number of Ashers and McCarthys who 
present themselves as experts at everything having to do with the 
environment and the economy, science, medicine and technology; and 
will do those trained in a given field the honor of defining their 
terms for them, will provide experts in a field with the correct 
interpretation of pertinent data, and tell them what information is 
pertinent and what is not as well.  All this for free!

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> 
> Michael Turton includes:
> 
>      Define "efficiency" please?  Is using heavily subsidized oil
>      and water to increase yields "efficient?"  As Arnold Pacey
>      points out in _The Culture of Technology_, from the
>      yield/hectare standpoint capital-intensive farming is more
>      "efficient," but from the energy input/yield standpoint,
>      low-tech, labor intensive farming is more efficient, many
>      times more, in fact.
> 
> 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.
Does this labor efficiency include those working in energy creation
(oil extraction, fertilizer manufacture) or just those directly
involved in agriculture ?
> 
> -- 
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
-- 
Alastair McKinstry 
Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: Jay Hanson  wrote:
: >In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
: >now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
: And if, stupid and violent though we be, more of us live better every
: year, and our reserves of resources continually increase, then things
: look pretty good for the future, don't they.
World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people are starving 
on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink glasses.
Ecologically,
Yuri.
--
           **    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto   **
  -- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being 
unable to sit still in a room    ||    B. Pascal

Gee, I missed most of this thread, once or twice it made sense, can we go 
through it in review one more time?
Nah, we'll just get the same old kennel droppings.

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
> : Jay Hanson  wrote:
> 
> : >In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
> : >now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
> 
> : And if, stupid and violent though we be, more of us live better every
> : year, and our reserves of resources continually increase, then things
> : look pretty good for the future, don't they.
> 
> World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people are starving
> on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink glasses.
> 
...which means only 15% of the population has trouble getting enough
food, far less than at any other point in history, and dropping. We are
doing a lot better than I thought! 
-- 
Enrique Diaz-Alvarez            Office # (607) 255 5034	
Electrical Engineering          Home #   (607) 758 8962
112 Phillips Hall               Fax #    (607) 255 4565
Cornell University              mailto:enrique@ee.cornell.edu
Ithaca, NY 14853                http://peta.ee.cornell.edu/~enrique

Ron Jeremy (tooie@sover.net) wrote:
: Sheila M Nauman (snauman@iastate.edu) wrote:
: : What is the power output of Nevada, Iowa's wind machines
: 337.4 MWe
For each machine or for the whole lot.  If the latter, how many
machines? 
--
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/

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: Approximately 7.5 tons of plutonium was put in the atmosphere by the
: atmospheric bomb tests.
What was the residence time of an average particle?
--
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/

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) 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.
This was for photovoltaic solar, right?  If so it doesn't surprise me.
--
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/

In sci.energy jforest@ionet.net wrote:
> D.F.S.  wrote:
> >In sci.energy jforest@ionet.net wrote:
> >> me@myown.net wrote:
> snip
> >> the service. I have installed and maintained 10 UPS ranging from 1kw
> >> single phase to 30 kw 3 phase unit, and if used as I described they
> for the record this doesn't make me an expert
> snip
> Most of the larger (>1kw) ups installed were "BEST" ups systems, they
> use a constant voltage transformer as part of the ups system, as long
> as the input voltage was between 80-105% (IIRC) the dc-ac side of the
> ups was not on line.
Then that would make them a "Backup Power Supply" in current terminology.
10 Years we called them all "UPS" units now the marketing guys from the
makers of these deviced tried to make a distinction between the types.
A TRUE online-all-the-time-voltage-and-phase-converting-Uninterruptable
Power-Supply is more expensive to build because the inverters ARE built
to run ALL the time. 
They are also "Better and worth the money" or so they say.
> >A "TRUE" UPS IS on and running all the time, a backup unit comes online
> >when needed.
> >A True UPS takes AC in, makes it DC, and charges the batteries and runs
> >the output from that DC power thus the inverter IS always on, Running and
> >supplies all the output power 100% of the time.
> >Some like the 6 Kw units I have will allow you to:
> >Select the output voltage range 110, 208, 220 and vary it +/- 20 Volts.
> >Make single or 3 phase power at any of the voltages regardless of the
> >input.
> >You can also set the output frequency.
> >Mine also has a serial port interface with hundreds of parameters
> >Including input/output voltage, frequency, and current,
> >Battery status, remaining capacity at current load, battery voltage
> >and temperature of the batteries and 4 other locations I think.
> >These are the type of UPS units many mainframe and mini computer
> >centers are pulling out of service. They are designed for continous
> >service with close tolerances.
> >The small cheap PC type units may or may not be a true online UPS,
> >so check this out.
> >Marc
> The BEST system was capable of the type of data output as you
> described, which really helped me out as I had several located
> anywhere fron 5-100 miles away, so I could check the system of the
> system by data link.
> We may be straying away from the orginal intent of the posting, all I
> was trying to say was that for long term power usage UPS are not
> really designed for that use, (they can be used, but should they?)
> they should be used for no break power for a conrolled shutdown
> situation or untill backup generator comes on line. 
> Any problem with this?
No, NOT if we are talking about BACKUP POWER SUPPLIES as you describe
you are 100% correct.
BUT there is more than one type of backup power system in use and a 
true online UPS runs the inverters ALL the time and they would see no
difference.
Why should I throw out or another person pass up a high tech solid
built $8,000.00 "UPS" that can be had for $20.00 to buy a $3,000
dollar specialty inverter that will probably not even be as good
or have nearly the features of a GOOD surplus "TRUE UPS"
I would go so far as to say if you are good enough with electronics
buy a backup power supply and modify it to handle continous duty.
Add larger Heat sinks, cooling fans, larger switching transistors if
necessary and try it out, it may not last and you'll burn up $50.00
or you may save $2,900.00.
Marc

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: World cereal production is expected to increase 7% in 1996
: over 1995, despite the rough spot for the US and continued
: efforts in the EU to withdraw land from production.
: The EU has been struggling for 25 years to bring stocks
: down to the level they are now at because of the enormous
: cost of storage. Their budget is now $5+ billion in surplus
: because of the success in reducing production.
: Production per capita world wide is up 5% in the last 15 years,
: regionally sub-Saharan Africa is down 5% per capita over
: the same period.
: However Eastern Europe and xUSSR are still not up to speed
: on modern production, be interesting to see what effect
: that has when they do get going.
A very paradoxical but nevertheless real difficulty is this:  the EU
produces far too much food, and to try to get rid of it they attempt to
sell it where it is most needed: Africa.  In the attempt to make it
affordable, they dump it there at something like 30-40 percent of world
market prices.  But... the effect of that dumping is to put domestic
farmers in those countries out of business and turn them into destitute
itinerants.  Domestic production collapses and people not in naturally
fortunate areas such as northwestern Cameroon do starve and the poorest
of them cannot buy world food at any price.  What to do?  The IMF will
not let these countries push food production over cash crops because all
these countries owe external creditors a lot of money.
I admit I am very perplexed at this.  So, apparently, are world leaders
of every stripe.  At least we know that simple trade is not the answer.
I cannot believe that simple debt relief would be, either, since that
would simply start the same process all over again.  But what is?
--
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/

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: The total number of deaths from all civilian nuclear power does not
: add up to a single school-bus crash, from 1945 to the present, except
: for the foul-up at Cernobyl.  This may have killed several dozen, or
: perhaps a few hundred.  Even if we take the number as a few hundred,
: it does not approach the danger of a few hundred thousand Saturday
: afternoon repairmen clambering around on their roofs and windmills.
I would wait about 20 years before making any serious claim regarding
this number, if I were you.  We haven't seen all the cancer deaths,
yet. 
: Home solar and wind power is the most dangerous idea since the
: back-yard swimming poool, a major menace to life and limb.
I agree in principle, but where is the damage tally from the systems (in
Europe) already in place?
Further, isn't the lawn mower a still greater menace?
I like gas-cooled nuclear, myself.  As long as passive stability is
built in, and the waste is compact and solid, we are all right in the
long run.  The principal problem is with the mining.
--
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/

Magnus Redin (redin@lysator.liu.se) wrote:
: > Suit yourselves. But in a week one or more of you will be posting
: > how technological developmenst are sure to solve some immensely more
: > complicated problem.
: Few things are as hard as getting people to change habits. And it is
: important to succeed with it to get rid of "diffuse" pollution
: sources. Its a lot easier to build say 10 complex powerplants and
: train a thousand people then to get a million to change their way of
: living. :(
Agreed.  Look at what it takes to get people to separate their trash.
To me it is second nature, and I don't understand all the fuss,
especially in the US.
: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: > By the way, check out passive solar. This approach uses things like
: > properly designed overhangs, oriented walls and windows, ordinary
: > convection, etc. etc.
This, even ideally, would only work for home heating.  And it is still
no solution for people living in existing homes.  I had a friend who was
living in a 500-year old house (there is some other poster's low
ceiling!) in Oxford.  Built out of stone, that house will be there at
least another 500 years. 
Magnus Redin (redin@lysator.liu.se) answered:
: It is allways smart to use good design. Dont forget to also build it
: to last a long time.
Problem is, that doesn't always _pay_.
--
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/

Michael Turton (mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw) wrote:
: 	This is hilarious!  Solar power more dangerous than
: nuclear power.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha!  I suggest you check out any
: book critical of risk analysis to get a more objective picture
: of the situation.  A good start might be Perrin's _Normal
: Accidents_, (Perrin served as a consultant to the commission
: on the TMI incident).  Perrin summarizes some of the conventional
: arguments against current forms of risk analysis as well as 
: adding some devastating ones of his own.
Be sure to distinguish between photovoltaic and water-heated designs,
and between industrial and household generation.  That is what this
thread is about.
--
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/

cdean73352@aol.com wrote:
>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has built a laser that generates
>1.3 quadrillion watts of power - over ten times higher than the previous
>laser power record.  Therefore, I would not discount Inertial Fusion's
>prospects just yet.  
I would.  Their ICF system, if they can overcome many hurdles
(like engineering a target chamber and set of final optics
that can tolerate 5 billion explosion and 50 krad/s of neutrons
for 30 years) would still only generate power at nearly $.09/kWh.
It doesn't make sense for commercial power generation.
> The FY97 Budget for civilian
>fusion research is a paltry $232.5 million.  If we were to make a
>concerted effort, we could duplicate the success of  the space race and
>have a commercial fusion power plant operating within ten years.
Tokamaks don't appear to be capable of making economical
fusion reactors; it is likely that DT reactors of any kind cannot
be made economical, for fundamental reasons pointed out
by (among others) Lawrence Lidsky in an (in)famous article
in Technology Review about ten years ago.  Studies since
then of tokamak fusion reactor designs have confirmed this:
they appear to be unable to be better than, at best, marginally
competitive.  They promise to be too large, too expensive and
too hard to maintain.
The question is really not why so little is being spent on fusion,
but rather why so much.
     Paul Dietz
     dietz@interaccess.com
     "If you think even briefly about what the Federal
      budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately
      realize that we are drifting inexorably toward a
      crisis"
        -- Paul Krugman, in the NY Times Book Review

William Royea  wrote:
> Mike Asher wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> Can you please elaborate on the argument presented in this reference?
> 
You mean, why is solar power so dangerous?  Solar systems require vast
areas of collection cells, covering with lens, mirrors, and or photovoltaic
cells.   (For instance, the Calfornia plant "Solar One", used one million
square feet of mirrors, all computer-driven, covering 75 acres)   These
vast collection areas must be kept free of dust, grease, snow, leaves, and
other foreign material.
The 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US is from falls;
accidents from workers climbing onto collecting surfaces or supporting
structures will be high.  In an industrial setting, this could be lessened
somwhat by automatic mechanisms (which must themselves be cleaned and
maintained) but, in an homeowner situation, there is no recourse but that
Joe Handyman climb up and clean.  And, unlike rain gutters, this must be
done often, as a dirty collector will refuse to heat your home.   Contrast
this with US nuclear power generation, which has two thousand reactor years
of operational experience, all without a single death.   Coal generation
kills several thousand people a year, yet it is considered "safe" by the
great unwashed, while nuclear power is "dangerous".
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.  Many of the materials are dangerous and highly toxic. 
Also, huge amounts of land must be suborned to collection of light.  For
example, to power New York City, you must cover an area greater than the
size of the city itself.   What forest, I ask, shall we raze to cover with
mirrors, for the next solar power station?
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people
attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends
on unreasonable people."
- George Bernard Shaw

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_?
How do you know that? The price of labour is going up in Zaire? Genocide 
must be pretty labour-intensive then...
It is people like you who bring us Zaire. I remember posting about this 
many months ago predicting that this is EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN!
Go ahead and snicker about it in your usual style. I expect THIS from 
you...
Yuri.
--
           **    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto   **
  -- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being 
unable to sit still in a room    ||    B. Pascal

Easy solution: the electric lawn mower.  Let go of the handle and it
stops dead --> injury risk is near zero.  And it doesn't smell so much,
so you can keep it inside.  The price is about the same as a "bargain
basement" gas mower, and the operating and maintenance costs are much
lower. 
--
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/

In article  Alastair McKinstry  writes:
 > 
 > jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
 > 
 > > 
 > > Michael Turton includes:
 > > 
 > >      Define "efficiency" please?  Is using heavily subsidized oil
 > >      and water to increase yields "efficient?"  As Arnold Pacey
 > >      points out in _The Culture of Technology_, from the
 > >      yield/hectare standpoint capital-intensive farming is more
 > >      "efficient," but from the energy input/yield standpoint,
 > >      low-tech, labor intensive farming is more efficient, many
 > >      times more, in fact.
 > > 
 > > 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.
 > 
 > Does this labor efficiency include those working in energy creation
 > (oil extraction, fertilizer manufacture) or just those directly
 > involved in agriculture ?
It includes only the people working in agriculture.  Americans spend
(if I recall correctly) 16 percent of our income on food, but this
includes restaurant meals.  In general, we spend much more on making
our eating convenient and pleasant than on the food itself.
When I go to a restaurant, I am appalled by the huge portions,
especially as I am too fat.  The reason they serve huge portions is
that the service is much more expensive than the food.
-- 
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.

David Weinstein (dave@dweinstein.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Seriously???? In the UK its about 60-65p per litre: = 4-4.5 $US.
: Crazy ain't it. I think its even worse on the continent. Of course, they
: all drive teeny tiny cars around here: Driving an American Conversion
: Van is funny here: its 3-4 times the size of the other cars and the
: roads are just so damn small. 
: the Ford Ka gets 90mpg! more than a moped!
I pay DM 1,75 per liter for "Super Plus", which is 98 octane lead free.
That is about 4.5 USD/gallon.  It is about the same in France, and
higher in Italy (or the other way around).
Your 60p per liter is a bit less.  The pound is about 2,5 DM.
On engine size: mine is 1.8 liter but has 200 HP.  I never drove at top
speed because I think it is unstable :-)
--
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/

In article <56f98q$4dfn@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
 > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
 > : There is only one thing actually false in Ehrlich's story of the bet.
 > : Having to pay more than $500 on a $1,000 futures contract is not "a
 > : small sum" relative to the size of the contract.  The tale is fuzzy in
 > : other ways than not mentioning how much Ehrlich had to pay.  Of
 > : course, for a man who got a $350,000 prize for making repeated false
 > : predictions, $500 is a small sum.  To mention only the false
 > : prediction in _The Population Bomb_ is again fuzzing up matters.
 > 
 > It is, actually.  Futures contracts are dangerous if you don't know what
 > you're doing, because you can end up losing (and being liable for) much
 > more than the amount of the contract.  That 1000 above is probably
 > margin on something worth more like 10,000.  I don't know if the usual
 > margin is as high as 10-1, but for oil before the Gulf War, though, it
 > was usually above 5-1 and was only lowered to about 3 or 4 to 1 (8,000
 > per contract, price between 22 and 32, in the last two months of 1990)
 > because of the volatility.
 > 
 > If Erlich had been _badly_ wrong, he could have lost several times more
 > than he did.  If you bought call on Jan 91 oil at 25 dollars in Sep 90
 > (before the doubling of the margin) and it had only dropped to 23, you
 > would have lost half your contract.  That is miniscule compared to what
 > actually happened to the price.  Most people lost everything and landed
 > in debt.
Bruce Scott is confused.
No margins were involved in the bet.  
Ehrlich could not have lost more than $1,000.  If the price of the
metals had gone to zero, $1,000 is what he would have lost.  Since the
price only halved (in constant dollars), he only had to pay about
$500.  Simon was the one with the unlimited risk.  If the price of
metals had gone up by a factor of 10, he would have had to pay $9,000.
If it had gone up by 100, he would have had to pay $99,000.
-- 
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.

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?
-- 
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.

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Engineering solutions for making clambering on roofs
: safer exist and are in some sense trivial (eg as
: a first step lower all house roofs to minimum tolerable
: ceilings, then surround them with soft yielding surfaces
: either on permanent basis or only when someone is
: on the roof - there are a number of other obvious
: pallatives). The problem is not the engineering, the
: problem is that most of the solutions are inconvenient
: enough that both the house owner and the roof climber
: are willing to risk death rather than waste the time
: and money to make the task intrinsically much safer.
: There is some marginal demand for safety, which reflects
: the fact that relative to other tasks clambering on roofs
: is somewhat unsafe - there may even be some movement to
: increment safety, but I suspect in practise even the simplest
: methods (like moving _slowly_ or having rails with short
: double clip safety ropes) will not be bothered with.
In the long run, what about electric robots as a solution?  No, I am not
joking.
--
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/

Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
> 
> A very paradoxical but nevertheless real difficulty is this:  the EU
> produces far too much food, and to try to get rid of it they attempt to
> sell it where it is most needed: Africa.  In the attempt to make it
> affordable, they dump it there at something like 30-40 percent of world
> market prices.  But... the effect of that dumping is to put domestic
> farmers in those countries out of business and turn them into destitute
> itinerants.  Domestic production collapses and people not in naturally
> fortunate areas such as northwestern Cameroon do starve and the poorest
> of them cannot buy world food at any price.  What to do? ...
> 
> I admit I am very perplexed at this.  So, apparently, are world leaders
> of every stripe.
Hehe, Bruce Scott takes a small step towards discovering free markets. 
Socialism is always less efficient, Bruce.  Your statement that world
leaders "of every stripe" are perplexed is innacurate.  If that stripe is
socialized, I'm sure they are. 
The only real solution is independence.  As any good welfare state knows,
dependence simply breeds more of the same.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income 
pie, decent government is impossible."
- Friedrich A. Hayek

Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
> Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
> 
> : 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.
> 
> This was for photovoltaic solar, right?  If so it doesn't surprise me.
> 
Yes, PV cells with ancillary collection via mirrors.  Unfortunately, as
pie-in-the-sky as these types of power plants are, most other plans for
solar generation are even worse.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone 
seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
- Frederic Bastiat

ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote:
>Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>: Or it may be slower. Remember the US doesn't import much
>: fish from Japan, so $-Yen rates are irrelevant, you'd need
>: the import value weighted basked of currencies of countries
>: that import fish to the US. I have no idea where the
>: PP corrected value of the $ was in 1970 relative to the intervening
>: years, but I do know it changed drastically at times during that
>: interval.
The US doesn't have to buy fish from Japan in order to be affected by
the exchange rate.  All it takes is for the US to pull one fish out of
the same water and decline to sell it to Japan because the US market
is more profitable for the exchange rate to be reflected in the
American price.
                                 -dlj.
>
>--
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
>Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
>U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: The first two come from "Journalists and Others for Saving the Planet",
: quoted in Wall Street Journal, David Brooks, they're also in "The
: Apocalyptics", by Edith Efron, 1984, ..33-35.  I'm too tired too look up
: the third one right now, I've posted it twice before, and you believe
: Ehrlich is a god anyway, yet another proof of his idiocy will unlikely sway
: you.
These aren't Erlich references.
: Waiting in anticipation of you stating that WSJ and Ms Efron are evil
: right-wing founts of disinformation.   Of course, I noticed you didn't
: challenge any of the many other examples I provided.  Instead of allowing
: you to metastasize the argument, I'd like to ask you for a good example of
: ANYTHING Ehrlich has been right about....other than butterfly counts, of
: course.
The WSJ is not my cup of tea, anymore than Population Action
International or Worldwatch might be yours.  This is why a reference to
Erlich writing in his own words is what is needed.  If the WSJ or your
other cites list a reference for his having made certain claims, then
please give us those.  If they are not to hand, just say so (I am not
asking you for leg work -- I know how hard that is).  Efron ought to
have a cite; the WSJ is unlikely to. 
--
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 (api@axiom.access.one.net) wrote:
: In article <566ude$68h7@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
: 	bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
: >: Primitive hunter-gatherers' life was 
: >: "brutish, miserable and short". The three go together. 
: >
: >As is posted elsewhere: this is nonsense.  And it was nonsense used as
: >an excuse for conquest, plunder, and murder.
: I don't disagree that there was conquest, plunder, and murder.  I do however
: agree that the life of *most* primitive hunter-gatherer peoples was not that
: great.  There are a few counterexamples, which live in areas of the world that
: are particularly conductive to human life and are relatively isolated from
: disease and invasion.  The peacefulness vs. violence of a tribe has a lot to
: do with their standard of living too, and whether they are surrounded by
: peaceful or violent tribes.
Glad to see the lack of an extremist position here.  Nevertheless, I
would maintain that the standard of living for most gatherer societies
prior to the invention of agriculture was likely to have been much
better both in terms of pressure and in terms of nutrition than the
workers of any agricultural society of significant size up to at least
the late 19-th Century.  And in terms of nutrition, tranquility, and
working hours they were better off than the lower third in the US in all
epochs.
: I really don't see that much different between the inter-tribal warfare of
: primitive peoples, and their invasion by tribes of white people.  It was all
: just primitive tribal warfare.  Tribes routinely warred with one another in
: most places.
Except that contact with the newcomers completely and permanently
destroyed their culture as they knew it.  Violently and psychologically.
One and two hundred years later (varies with the nation in question), a
minority of them are picking up the pieces.
It is worth learning just how severe that holocaust was.  We are not
taught that in our schools, for obvious reasons.
--
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/

Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
> 
> Be sure to distinguish between photovoltaic and water-heated designs,
> and between industrial and household generation.  That is what this
> thread is about.
> 
Household generation is far more dangerous than industrial, Bruce.  Instead
of trained maintenance personnel, you've got weekend warriors climbing
about.  Instead of a few hundred plants, you have a few million homes. 
And, every design I've seen for efficient storage of heat throughout a
night has has some sort of safety hazard as well.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.  
The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into
practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... "
  - Hitler to Rauschning

Ah, could we be more specific. How many machines are there. There is 
one 225 kW turbine that I am aware of. Are there others.?
paul gipe

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
[edited]
>: The best predictor of population stability is the societies wealth.
>: The society with access to wealth and education is the society with
>: the lower birth rate.  What we need to do is try to increase the
>: standard of living of the world.
>
>Apply this model to increasingly industrialising China of the 12th
>Century and you'd be wrong.  
I find it interesting that you would revert to 12th century China for
your only example, and a vague one at that.  I think you are clever
enough to understand that my reference was not to 12th century
"industrialization", but to 20th century "access to wealth and
education".  
I did not make a mistake when I chose how to phrase it, I will let you
know when I want you to rephrase it.  This will probably not happen
soon, since you changed the meaning.
>When a culture becomes better at providing
>energy and therefore more food, it usually responds by creating more
>children.  
Modern (20th century) ecxperience fails to bear you out.  In fact, as
the wealth and resources of a modern society has grown, the birth rate
has always dropped.  I believe that a large part of this has to do
with increased education, particularly of women.  Subsistence or near
subsistence societies do not have resources to devote to education,
being principally concerned with the origin of the next meal.  As the
reources and wealth increase, a larger portion is available for the
education of ordinary people.
People are not cockroaches or even butterflies, they are able to think
and change their behavior, given the resources to accomplish this.
>The only reason this isn't being done in Europe today is
>space, eg, most people who want children or more of them actually don't
>because they can't afford it.  The expense of living space is the
>reason.
While I understand the assertion, you have failed to present any
evidence for this.  With only a few exceptions, the wealthiest
countries in the world are those with the lowest birthrate, and the
wealth came first!
People can reason and think, they can alter their behavior to fit the
circumstances.  In a wealthy society, children are an economic burden.
In a poor society, children are an economic asset.  In a poor society,
children can work, at home or in the fields, they can even be sold as
slaves to work in whorehouses or factories.
Regards, Harold
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic 
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and 
being honest."
     - Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.   
	"Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47

: >In article <564mrc$m08@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
: >	af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
: >>    The United States has launched spacecraft carrying plutonium dioxide
: >>24times, usually in amounts of 1 to 10pounds. There were problems on
: >>three of the 24 spacecraft; plutonium dust was released from one of the
: >>three.
: api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
: >1 to 10 pounds.  Do you have any idea what the level of dilution is for that
: >in the atmosphere?  Or the ocean?  More nuclear material probably comes out of
: >the smokestacks in coal burning power plants every year because of radioactive
: >minerals in coal.
Prior to the SNAP-6A (I believe it was) burnup, the Pu level in
northern hemisphere topsoils (a few pCi/g) was nearly 100% 239-Pu,
a residue of atmospheric nuclear testing. Afterwards, it was
about 5% 238-Pu. That is, about 5% of all environmental Pu
came from that one accident.
Very little (i.e. 0) Pu comes from the smokestacks of coal plants.
Bo

yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people are starving 
>on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink glasses.
Yuri,
I very much doubt that this is what the World Food Organization
(what's that?) reports -- but I am perfectly willing to believe that
800 million are close to the margin.
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.
                                      -dlj.

Bo Curry   wrote:
> 
> Very little (i.e. 0) Pu comes from the smokestacks of coal plants.
> 
Uranium, however, does come from smokestacks of coal plants.  Several
hundred tons/year.  Worrying about plutonium from spacecraft is better
suited for an X-Files episode.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Let's face it.  We don't want safe nuclear power plants. We want NO
nuclear power plants."
   - spokesperson for GAO, the Government Accountability Project