Newsgroup sci.energy 55919

Directory

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> Nudds writes:
>        There is undoubtedly a huge market for an inexpensive car
>      that has a standard and unchanging design that is intended
>      for long life and simple repair.  No such automobile is
>      currently in production, and none is planned.  The reason is
> Nudds is repeating and old half-witted song.
> The VW Beetle is such a car.  It is still in production in Brazil, but
> its sales in the U.S. and other rich countries declined until VW
> decided that the Rabbit would be more profitable.  
> Others have tried to make a basic car profitably and have failed.
One of the big US manufacturers are currently producing
such a car, the "World Car", was an interesting article
on it in the Herald Tribune or some such,
Its aimed at the Asian emerging market (primarily China)
but I believe it will also be sold in Europe. Looks like
a VW Bug crossed with a Fiat 600 with a hint of the Mini
in its ancestry. Good mileage, crap performace, probably
won't sell in the US (indeed might not be legal in the US).
Couple of the European manufacturers have similar
models out or in production. The Japanese manufacturers
also seem to have small standard models that don't make
it in the US, eg I've never seen a Mazda 121 in the US.

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
>: As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
>: world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods.  Expantion of the use of
>: modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
>: double world food production.  All without an additional acre being farmed,
>: though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
>: for many years.   Perhaps you have some statistics here?
>
>You are welcome to calculate the increase of the crude oil drawdown rate
>if the rest of the world farms the way the US does.
There is nothing here about the rest of the world farming "the way the
US does."  Feeding chemical fed corn to cattle is a singularly stupid
way of both using land and feeding people.
The major hindrances to the productivity of land are the lack of
potassium and of nitrogen.  The United States burned its eastern
forests to export potash to Europe, then conquered the Pacific to get
the islands it authorised itself to seize under the Guano ct of 1899.
Modern agriculture -- modern, not American, being Asher's keyword --
replaces these olde tyme moves with the simple strewing of phosphate
rock, available in vast quantities in Saskatchewan, Idaho, California,
Peru, and elsewhere.
In American agriculture the main source of nitrogen is ammonia, which
used to be made out of electricity, and is today made more cheaply
from natural gas.  This is not the only way of doing it. India and
China both built large populations on small land areas by planting
nitrogen fixing plants, lentils and soybeans, respectively. 
It will be a quick fix, literally, in Sudan once the civil war ends,
to alternate soybeans with millet on the Bor uplands.  This will mean
an immediate, cheap, and huge improvement of productivity; the
necessary survey work has already been done, by satellite, and is on
file on the Internet at University of Arizona.  My partner's family,
those who have not been murdered by the government, own some of the
land, and bide their time in universities in Europe, Canada, Botswana.
I think there is an automatic Nobel Prize in either chemistry of peace
for the person who comes up with the nitrogen-fixing grain, tuber, or
fruit tree.  As genetic engineering -- think of it as a new kind of
biodiversity -- proceeds, I expect these prizes to be claimed over the
next few years.
                                   -dlj.

PG&E; Is Selling Electricity Via The Internet - SF Chronicle
Find this article at:
NewsLinx Daily Web News
http://www.newslinx.com/

conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
There is no point trying to educate you, facts when presented are
ignored.  Truths when given are corrupted.
Having lived in L.A. (Culver City and Topanga Canyon, near the place 
where Top. and Old Topanga splits, not far from Rocco's Pizza), I can
state that the use of two cycle engines are very common.  Can you say
leaf blower, 
> : 
> : Power plants add almost none of the VOC burden to Ozone production. 
> : Not only are they a small source, most are located far enough away from
> : urban sources to not take part in the VOC ozone equation.  (NOx is another
> : matter)
> 
> What you're really saying is that since these are not near you, you 
> really don't care that they pollute someone else...someone far away from
> the populated urban areas.
> 
Ozone is formed when VOC and NOx and sunlight forms some rather complicated
chemistry.  Without a high concentration of all three, you don't get
unacceptable levels of ozone.  It is ozone we are talking about,
bozo.
NOx, SO2 and acid rain is another matter.
> : 
> : Small commercial engines are another matter.  They are run in peak ozone
> : forming season, they are run in the ozone formation area.  If you've
> : ever lived in an ozone non-attainment area you would know that one of
> : the pleads that is issued is for citizens to avoid lawn equipment usuage
> : during ozone action days.  
> 
> On the other hand, I would argue that such areas are so densely populated,
> few residents really need a power mower.  
> 
>
> : 
> : Whats been required for new lawnmowers is pretty low tech stuff.  I've
> : heard that the estimate is $25-50 dollars for a new system.  About
> : the cost of the chainbreak on my stihl chainsaw.  A basic lawnmower 
> : cost about $125, 
> 
> Funny, I can remember when the same thing was said about automobiles.
> Anti-pollution adders for a car were estimated by their proponents as
> costing roughly $125 (catalytic converter and blower).  As it turns
> out, pollution control devices on a modern car cost roughly the price
> of an engine.
> 
Oh please, the manufactur cost of an engine is not greater than the 
the manufactor cost of pollution control devices.  Your arguement
is so spurious to be laughable.  A new $20,000 car, it purchased by buying 
repair or replacement parts, costs of S150,000 (source Click and Clack,
NPR)  Don't spout bullshit here 
> What can one conclude from estimates of this quality?  I conclude
> that the proponents of such systems, by putting forth estimates of
> such poor quality, label themselves as either technically incompetent
> or simply liars.  Your choice.
> 
Yes, I agree that the above statement describes YOU very well.
Don't say that air quality in the South Coast Basin (L.A.), has not
improved immensely over the last thirty years.  Any resident, or
former resident will call you a damn liar for that statement.
The CAA has brought attainment to many areas of the country.  It has
improved the air in all non-atttainment areas.

Hi all
Can't find much on the Web about electrowinning as a method for
recycling Pb/Acid batteries. Can anyone point me in a good direction?
Thanks
-- 
Martin J. Bernard III, Ph.D.
Executive Director
National Station Car Association
Oakland, California
******************************************************************
*       Station cars will become mobility systems including      *
*    battery-powered cars for access to mass transit stations.   *
* For information about the station car concept please visit the *
*        National Station Car Association's Info Pages at        *
*                     http://www.stncar.com                      *
*             If you want to learn about the French              *
*                concept of station cars, visit                  *
*              http://www-rocq.inria.fr/praxitele                *
************************Making EVs Current************************

Nick Eyre (nick@eyrenenv.demon.co.uk) writes:
> Both the UK and France operate reprocessing plants which have both
> military and "civil" purposes.  
The reprocessing of civilian nuclear fuel is in no way linked to weapons. 
Countries that manufacture weapons-grade plutonium have absolutely no
incentive to attempt this in a civilian power reactor.
>And in the UK the weapons grade Pu has
> certainly been produced in power reactors.
Not in civilian power reactors it hasn't.  The only "double-use" reactors
in the UK are a few 50MW Magnox units that generate electricity on the
side for sites like Sellafield.  This is an extremely inefficient process,
and the spent fuel from these units is nothing like typical commercial
spent fuel.
--
Jeremy Whitlock
cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/

In article <3287C39C.2FA0@ilhawaii.net>,
	Jay Hanson   wrote:
>jw wrote:
>
>-> >If you define "gained in performance" as:
>-> > "Filling the dump truck with dead babies faster",
>-> >   then you are right.  See:
>-> >http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/zaire_goma_dead_30.mov
>
>-> (2) as for your horrible phrase
>-> "Filling the dump truck with dead babies faster" -
>-> you couldn't be more wrong factually.
>
>Why don't you watch the movie?  They are
>tossing dead babies into a dump truck.
>
>This is what you call "progress".
And I suspect you're being disingenious to say that this is solely due
to environmental, Earth-carrying capacity issues, rather than the fact
taht it's really hard to plow a field and plant food when you're being
shot at and when your field is littered with landmines.
	-Mike Pelletier.

inforich@cris.com writes:
> PG&E; Is Selling Electricity Via The Internet - SF Chronicle
Damn, I must have missed that spec in the IP.
So, will it have 50Hz option as well, or must I put
a converter on the back of the box?
:-)

ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : > 
> : > Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say.  But things
> : > will have to get _much_ better before the price of fish falls to, say,
> : > its 1935 level.  Back then, fish was two and a half times cheaper than
> : > it is today, relative to the CPI.  Even since 1970, the price of fish
> : > has gone up 40% faster than overall inflation.  "We're running out
> : > of fish" doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
> : Ah, the price of _what_ fish, where?
> : Are you comparing sardines in the Bay
> : Area or salmon in London?
> These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
> of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas.  It's a weighted average
> of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
> Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.  
> From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
> rose 548%.  I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
Those will then include a different bunch of fish
in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
have been unthinkable in 1970.
Penetration of ocean fish to markets in the central US
increased, as did market penetration of prepared fish,
both practises involve higher cost retail in exchange
for consumer convenience.
A number of different species of fish were introduced to
US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
commanded a premium price.
Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval, 
and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
BTW, there has been substantial technological improvement
in fist cathcing. This has been dampened both by high
capital cost of replacing equipment, and, more significantly,
very high subsidies of inefficient fisheries by many nations.

Hi,
	My name is shawn Blaesing, and I'm a student at Iowa State
University.  I recently wrote a paper discussing the effects on mining and
the environment.  In the paper I touched on some of the effects that coal
use has on the environment.  I was just wondering what people think about
the use of powers sources that are damaging to the environment, and what
possible alternatives are out there for energy sources.
Shawn Blaesing (chlorine@iastate.edu)
-- 
                             Shawn Renee Blaesing                          
              Earth Science/Environmental Studies/Secondary Education      
                             chlorine@iastate.edu  

Hi,
I was asked to set up an educational do-center with hands-on experiments in the
field of ENERGY, with leading themes: 
WIND, WATER, SUN and FIRE.
This project is meant to illustrate scientific principles to children (ages
8 to 16).
For this job I could use good ideas for illustrative experiments, preferrably
experiments that require some action from the child's side.
Anyone out there to help me?
                                                              Pim Reinders
                                                              reinders@nlr.nl

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>I have no objection to solar energy, but I see it as enough more
>expensive than nuclear energy that I don't expect it to become the
>major source unless world-wide ideologically motivated stupidity comes
>to dominate.
Solar energy means every house in the land having a water heater on
the roof.  This means every handyman and Mister Goodwrench wannabe
climbing on the roof to fix leaks, clean off the rotten leaves, and
chase the squirrels out of the piping.
The deaths from people falling off roofs will dwarf the casualties
from nuclear power, Chernobyl included.
                             -dlj.

In article <01bbd057$81cc4280$89d0d6cc@masher>, "Mike Asher"
 wrote:
> Jay Hanson  wrote in article 
> > Well John, if there is anyone who is an expert on misleading
> > people, it's you.
Mike - This is like intruding in a conversation heard at another table in
a restaurant, but here goes:
per: your response to John about accurately reporting fishery losses,
after reading your contribution, I can't see that you've refuted what John
said. All you've added is that (probably partially in response to
declining yields in some overfished species) the fishing industry is
branching out and attacking new species. And just because the overall
fished yield of ALL species of fish has increased, it doesn't follow that
there are more fish. It probably means the frighteningly efficient
floating warehouses are strip-mining the seas ever more effectively, and
telling consumers to try fish that didn't used to be as popular. Did you
see the Mother Jones spread on world-wide decline of fisheries last year?
Excuse me. I know I'm butting in.
Humbly,
Betsy (aka Loretta)

Mike wrote:
> >Tremendous increases, although the curve is obviously approaching an
> >asymptote.  Rice, another staple, has recently seen the introduction of new
> >high-yield species and is increasing along similar lines.   Dozens of
> >companies are creating new species of fruits and vegetables; expect another
> >yield explosion here within the next decade.
OK - I promise to butt out after this - in fact I don't think I'll be able
to stand reading this outdated debate. Mike, why are you acting as if the
"Green Revolution" hasn't been debunked years ago? 
Why are you ignoring the real reason farmland is declining in this country
(ie: being covered in suburpia) - because so much of it has lost it's
value as farmland, thanks to the ignorant short-term strip-mining approach
of petro-chemical farming? Hey - even the popular press (GASP) has heard
the news. Much of the best farmland in this country eroded into the ocean
years ago. Biggest question of all - why are you on this list? Is it just
to bait people who acknowledge these facts? 
Betsy

charliew wrote:
> you're taking up a lot of bandwidth with this crap.  We've
> all had ample opportunity to learn of your opinion about the
> connection between entropy and food production.  Many of us
> are not convinced, no matter how many times you post your
> same senseless, extremely long document.
charliew, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANYTHING I WRITE!
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          PLEASE PUT ME IN YOUR KILLFILE!
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
That includes you, jw, Harold and McCarthy -- so far.
Jay

Paul E. Bennett wrote:
> You could also ask if Nuclear Energy Generation is viable given that wave
> power is still largely un-tapped and could be implemented at less cost than
> a Nuclear Power Plant of equivalent output.
Has there ever been a large demonstration plant?  What power output
can you get per sq km or km of ocean front?  What do you do to store
power for those low wind/small wave periods?
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
In an attempt to decrease the junk e-mail advertising I get,
I have mangled my return address. Commas to dots in the
obvious fashion.
Dan Evens

Mike Asher wrote:
> Speak of misleading!  Your table includes only the species that experienced
> declines; not hard to support your thesis that 'fish are running out'.
> However, culling from the same source as you, the FAO, I pulled the
> following data:
> 
> "World marine fisheries production has increased almost fivefold over the
> past 40 years, rising from around 18 million tonnes to more than 86 million
> tonnes by 1989... The use of fish as a source of food has increased
> steadily, rising from 40 million tonnes in 1970 to 70 million tonnes in
> 1989."
Are you surprised that the fish which declined just happen
to be the ones we eat?  Gee, how did you happen to pick 1989?
"Despite the vastness of the planet's coastal waters, where
 most fish are caught, an unforeseen natural threshold was
 crossed before scientists even knew it existed. The global
 fish catch peaked in 1989 at 89 million metric tons and has
 hovered at around 85 million tons since then. The United
 Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates
 that nearly 70 percent of the world's conventional fish
 species-such as cod, hake and haddock-are already fished
 up to or beyond sustainable limits. 
"Although aquaculture—the farming of fish in either marine
 or inland waters—produces more fish each year, it cannot
 long compensate for the declining availability of fish
 caught wild, according to the report's authors. Under two
 of the United Nations' three projections for world population
 for the year 2050, aquaculture production would have to 
 'exceed' the total wild fish catch in order to maintain
 current levels of per capita fish consumption-a virtually
 impossible achievement, according to PAI."
Catching the Limit: Population and the Decline of Fisheries"
 is available for purchase from:
 Population Action International 1120 19th Street,
 NW-Suite 550/Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-659-1833
Contact: Sally Ethelston 202-659-1833 ext. 133,
sae@popact.org; FAX 202-293-1795 
Patricia M. Sears, Deputy Director,
 Media Relations 202-659-1833 ext.
 131,pmsears@popact.org; ORpmsears@aol.com. 
> Hang your head in shame, Mr. Hanson.
If you pull another one like this, I will no longer respond to you.
Jay

Mike Pelletier wrote:
> >Why don't you watch the movie?  They are
> >tossing dead babies into a dump truck.
> >
> >This is what you call "progress".
> 
> And I suspect you're being disingenious to say that this is solely due
> to environmental, Earth-carrying capacity issues, rather than the fact
> taht it's really hard to plow a field and plant food when you're being
> shot at and when your field is littered with landmines.
Here is my working definition of carrying capacity:
"Carrying capacity is the maximum load that can be exerted
 on a life support system by a population of animals without
 damaging the system itself.  When a population exceeds
 carrying capacity it is known as 'overshoot'."
It follows that carrying capacity can not be raised by a
technology that either results in a net draw-down of
non-renewable resources or pollutes sinks faster than they
can be naturally cleansed. (I think this includes nearly
all technology.)
Instead of actually raising carrying capacity, technology
"temporarily" allows more animals to survive.  At some
point, populations MUST fall to (or below) carrying
capacity. (Populations MUST fall because of the way
carrying capacity is defined.)
Here is a particularly important point to remember --
 it gets right to the heart of your question:
 CARRYING CAPACITY IS CALCULATED IN A SPECIFIC REGION
 USING ACTUAL ANIMALS ACTING AS THEY NATURALLY DO --
 NOT SOME  HYPOTHETICAL SET OF ANIMALS THAT MIGHT BE
 SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ACTUAL ONES.
In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
Conversely, if humans actually DO manage to somehow
change their behavior for the better, then carrying
capacity goes up.  For example, Earth might be able
to support 6 billion Amish.
Jay

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: Speak of misleading!  Your table includes only the species that experienced
: declines; not hard to support your thesis that 'fish are running out'. 
: However, culling from the same source as you, the FAO, I pulled the
: following data:
: "World marine fisheries production has increased almost fivefold over the
: past 40 years, rising from around 18 million tonnes to more than 86 million
: tonnes by 1989... The use of fish as a source of food has increased
: steadily, rising from 40 million tonnes in 1970 to 70 million tonnes in
: 1989."
This is misleading too because it is old information - I don't have access
immediately but the best information is a graph shown in New Scientist
which showed that fishing had maxed out and was declining.  It also showed
that large areas of ALL the oceans had major reductions in fish stocks. 
Certain areas like those off Newfoundland which were originally teaming
with Cod now essentially have none.  
Has any body got a copy of the graph showing fishing tonnage and stock
estimates for the last 20 years - the one I saw was really scary.

From:    WindPower
Adress: BBS II ( technical secondary school )
            c/o WindPower
            Strassburger Strasse 2
            26123 OLDENBURG
            - GERMANY - 
EMail: palandt@metronet.de
About this projectgroup and its members:
The WindPower-Group is a federation of boys and girls of our school wich
want to
work with renweable energies. At the moment we' re four students from the
12th
and 13th grade.
Up to now we worked out these technologies:
1. Three electric powered vehicles ( Based on a Trabant -Germans say
"Trabbi"- )
2. A windgenerator
3. A photoelectric generator
4. A teaching-project called "Students inform students for renewable
energies"
5. A thermo-electric engine for domestic use
At the moment we work out a weather observer controlled by a 80C535-
microcontroller.
If you' ve questions about our projects or want us to develop new
technologies,
please don' t be shy and contact us at or adresses.
We' re also willing to send you a little description about each project you
want.
You only need to send us your adress, a little description of what you need
and
we would be very happy, if you may send us enough money in stamps, to 
send you the informations you want by letter. ( Because of all the papers
we haven' t
to scan in then. )
Hope to hear from you soon,
             S. Palandt ( WindPower news service )
P.S. If you want to spend us money for new developments, it' s no problem.
       We ever need money, because our work isn' t that cheap !!
       If you want to send us some money, we' ll send you a receipt and a
gift-
       declaration.

Extremely Right (99@spies.com) wrote:
: In article <563ien$98g@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
: 
: > I notice that Helen Chenoweth, the freshman representative
: > from Idaho, so demonized in the green usenet groups, has been
: > re-elected.
: > 
: 
: > Pay it back, with interest, Helen.
: > You are stronger now, not a freshman
: > any more. Your party is bound to increase its
: > majority substantially in 1998, a midyear always 
: > works that way. You are almost sure to be re-elected.
: > 
: > This is the time for some healthy triumphalism.
: > Rub it in, let them know you feel their
: > pain. Your enemies are the enemies 
: > of mankind. Give'em hell.
: 
: I second the motion with interest... ###8up
	Just to contrast, the vast majority of Republican 
freshmen running for re-election took great pains to stress 
that they were dedicated to protecting the environment 
(with only a couple of noteworthy exceptions) due to the beating 
on the issue they took in 1995, 
and Gingrich's realization that they were getting clobbered in the polls 
because of it.  He even advised some of the more vocal (Pombo and Young)
to quiet down.  Do you think they are immediately going to hand 
Democrats a cudgel like that to beat them with again?  I think
Lott and Gingrich are intelligent men and won't do anything that 
stupid.
	Chenoweth just barely made it, too.  I wonder what her margin 
was in 1996 compared to the 6-7,000 vote squeaker she had this time.
===============================================
|  James G. Acker                             |
|  REPLY TO:   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov  |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> 
> jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
> 
> >I have no objection to solar energy, but I see it as enough more
> >expensive than nuclear energy that I don't expect it to become the
> >major source unless world-wide ideologically motivated stupidity comes
> >to dominate.
> 
> Solar energy means every house in the land having a water heater on
> the roof.  This means every handyman and Mister Goodwrench wannabe
> climbing on the roof to fix leaks, clean off the rotten leaves, and
> chase the squirrels out of the piping.
> 
> The deaths from people falling off roofs will dwarf the casualties
> from nuclear power, Chernobyl included.
> 
>                              -dlj.
> 
Replies like this won't do much for your credibility.

Jose Lourenco wrote:
> 
> I need some information on thermal energy storage products for HVAC
> systems. Suppliers, info sources, etc.
Contact IEA energy efficiency center and/or IEA heat pump center.  www 
are
http://www.caddet-ee.org
http://www.heatpumpcentre.org
good luck

Yonks!
Horace Heffner wrote:
> The idea is to adapt some existing military Meals Ready to Eat (MRE)
> packaging techniques and recipes to use in small packages similar in size
> to ketchup, mayonnaise, or hot sauce squeeze packets.  Such squeeze
> packets are typically 1.5 inches by 3 inches and about .25 inches thick.
Reminds me of a story about a Roman emperor. He thought it would be a
good
idea at a banquet to have rose petals come wafting down on everybody.
> 3. The likelihood of injury to people in the drop area is small provided
> they don't look up and get hit in the eye by a falling packet.  Even then
> the risk of permanent injury is small, unlike the risk of being hit by a
> one ton pallet, or being trampled in a mad rush to a food container.
So, this emperor had an arrangment where a ton of rose petals were piled
up on a sort of trap door arrangment above the party.  When the trap
door
was opened, the ton of rose petals came down and crushed everybody at
the banquet.  Everybody, including the emperor, was killed.
What a thought!  Millions of ketchup squirtties being dumped out the
back of a B52, spilling down like some kind of demented snow storm,
smothering people and livestock alike. Most of them lost in weeds
or mud or in the ditch at the side of the road. Many of them bloating
in the sun and becoming lethal, then being found and eaten by
unsuspecting children.
MAGNIFICENT!
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
Dan Evens

Jay Hanson wrote:
> 
>  CARRYING CAPACITY IS CALCULATED IN A SPECIFIC REGION
>  USING ACTUAL ANIMALS ACTING AS THEY NATURALLY DO --
>  NOT SOME  HYPOTHETICAL SET OF ANIMALS THAT MIGHT BE
>  SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ACTUAL ONES.
> 
> In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
> now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
> 
I note:
Well put.  I'll save this.

Mason A. Clark wrote:
....
> 
> 3. The posts in this thread are by people who do not play poker.
>     Poker players know that there are two considerations, not
>     alone the ODDS.   Tbe other consideration in placing a bet
>     is the STAKE -- what might be lost as well as what might be
>     won.    What is at stake in the limits to growth is life on the
>     planet as we know it.  Should we play the game if the odds are
>     even 5000 to 1 that there is no limit in sight?   Think a moment.
>     What odds are good enough?
....
You're trying to offer a rational explanation to those who have no 
desire to be rational.  Nice try, but you'd best decide on your plan B 
a.s.a.p.

In article <569bn0$24s@agate.berkeley.edu> ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
 > 
 > jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
 > : In <565ehv$qm9@agate.berkeley.edu> ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott
 > : Susin) writes: 
 > : >If the absolute catch is constant, then there's fewer fish per capita
 > : >every year.  
 > 
 > : Only if you ignore fish farming.
 > 
 > If true, so what?  My point is basically that we're managing our
 > fisheries badly.  Even if fish farming can compensate for that,
 > that's no reason to screw up the oceans.
 > 
 > In any event, fish consumption per capita in the US, though higher
 > than in 1970, fell from 1987-1994.  And fish farming hasn't 
 > kept prices from rising 40% faster than inflation since 1970.
Susin is painting with too broad a brush.  
Some fisheries are being managed well - by enforced quotas - and
others are being managed badly.  Gradually the nations that fish are
coming into agreement.  It isn't so easy, because nations that haven't
fished in certain major fishing grounds until recently are taking what
they consider to be their share.
The Spaniards point out that they have been fishing for cod off the
Grand Banks for more than 500 years, i.e. since before Columbus, and
have acquired certain habits.  This led to their squabbles with the
Canadians with the EEC giving the Spaniards lukewarm support.
According to the Canadians, the cod are recovering now - at least in
the areas under direct Canadian control.
Also the overfished species of whale are coming back, but the problems
there are complicated by the fact that many people don't want whales
fished, no matter how abundant they become.  Unfortunately for them,
the international organization dealing with whales has a charter only
to make the fishing sustainable, not to abolish it for sentimental
reasons.  This forces the whale lovers to lie, and they do it very
well.
-- 
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.

Scott Susin includes:
     I think I'm going to vow never to say anything about
     technology again, except that it can't be measured.
Susin is exhibiting a willful ignorance of technology that is all too
common among economists.  Economists like to regard technology as just
another factor of production characterized by one number - the return
on investment.  I recently read _The Mosaic of Economic Growth_, and
all the articles but one (by a chemical engineer) exhibited that
fault.
Each technology has its own specific characteristics, and failure to
take them into account leads to absurdities.
One consequence of the economists' disdain for technology, more
broadly a disdain for specifics, is that it is apparently impossible
to get input-output matrices for the American economy these days.  If
someone knows where they might be available, please let me know.
-- 
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.

So Population Action International considers it impossible that that
the production of farmed fish can reach the present catch 85 million
tons of wild fish.  I am not surprised that Population Action
International would say that - or that Jay Hanson would take their
statement as authoritative and not requiring substantiation.
-- 
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 <32889C11.6C6F@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson  writes:
 > charliew wrote:
 > 
 > > you're taking up a lot of bandwidth with this crap.  We've
 > > all had ample opportunity to learn of your opinion about the
 > > connection between entropy and food production.  Many of us
 > > are not convinced, no matter how many times you post your
 > > same senseless, extremely long document.
 > 
 > charliew, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANYTHING I WRITE!
 >           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 >           PLEASE PUT ME IN YOUR KILLFILE!
 >           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 > 
 > My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
 > 
 > I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
 > 
 > That includes you, jw, Harold and McCarthy -- so far.
 > 
 > Jay
I am unable to accede to Jay Hanson's request that I not comment on
his posts.  When I read a post that I consider mistaken, I respond to
it for what I imagine to be the benefit of the audience.  Sometimes it
benefits the poster, but I am ready to give up on Jay Hanson changing
his mind on anything.
There is one way Hanson can reduce the number of replies I make to his
posts.  When he posts a document he has posted before, he should note
that fact and note who replied to a previous posting.  I would then
often skip the opportunity to reply to the same document again.
-- 
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.

l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote for all to see:
>Mike wrote:
>
>> >Tremendous increases, although the curve is obviously approaching an
>> >asymptote.  Rice, another staple, has recently seen the introduction of new
>> >high-yield species and is increasing along similar lines.   Dozens of
>> >companies are creating new species of fruits and vegetables; expect another
>> >yield explosion here within the next decade.
>
>OK - I promise to butt out after this - in fact I don't think I'll be able
>to stand reading this outdated debate. Mike, why are you acting as if the
>"Green Revolution" hasn't been debunked years ago? 
Really, who debunked it and when?  If this were the case, would we not
be seeing declining yields/acre?  Do you have evidence of this, or do
you consider your assertion sufficient?  See "world Crop Production",
USDA/FAS, WCP 5-87, May, 1987 or "World Agricultural Production",
WAP-1-91, Jan 1991.
>Why are you ignoring the real reason farmland is declining in this country
>(ie: being covered in suburpia) - because so much of it has lost it's
>value as farmland, thanks to the ignorant short-term strip-mining approach
>of petro-chemical farming? 
USDA has been studying soil erosion for years, and would like nothing
more than to prove it to be a large problem, and hence generator of
programs for them to administer.  Their survey found the average loss
to be 7 tons a year per acre of farmland, while natural regeneration
runs at 5 tons a year/acre.  Call it a net loss of 2 tons per acre.
Two tons an acre is 1/65 of an inch.  Thus, in 65 years, the average
farmland will lose 1 inch of topsoil.  Assuming it has been farmed the
entire 65 years.  Some fallow years will make up for this loss.
>Hey - even the popular press (GASP) has heard
>the news. Much of the best farmland in this country eroded into the ocean
>years ago. Biggest question of all - why are you on this list? Is it just
>to bait people who acknowledge these facts? 
I don't know about Mike, but I understand your arguments.  You make
assertions, present no references, state that even the press agrees
with you (like that's a good reference!), then question the motive of
the character of the previous poster.  Too typically an example of
modern postings on the net.
>Betsy
Is your name Loretta or Betsy?  Or both?
Regards, Harold
----
"Monster one minute.  Food the next."
	Kiakshuk, Inuit Hunter

In article <568pgk$4fn@grissom.powerup.com.au>, gakp@powerup.com.au (Karen
or George) wrote:
> In article <3287C1C8.278A@ilhawaii.net>, jhanson@ilhawaii.net says...
> >
> >For Immediate Release
> >
> Surely, this is commercial advertising that is supposed to be a no-no
> in discussion groups.  Besides, it has no relevance for sci.econ, so it
> constitutes a double violation of netiquette.
> 
> George Antony
Jay Hanson 
At the core of Betrayal of Science and Reason is a systematic
debunking of the myths advanced by the brownlash, such as:
   * there is no extinction crisis
Jay is performing a valuable service and I for one don't have time to read
much more than abstracts. 
ER> Erlich incredibly is whing about the problem HE CREATED. This time the
sky is absolutely positively without a doubt cross my heart and hope you
die...
###8up
Jay Hanson 
At the core of Betrayal of Science and Reason is a systematic
debunking of the myths advanced by the brownlash, such as:
   * there is no extinction crisis

jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote for all to see:
>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
[deleted]
>: The two parties share the
>: responsibility for the budget deficits, and the consequent increase in
>: the public debt.
>
>Your basic horseshit.  Defense spending increased.  Domestic 
>spending not associated with entitlement programs (Social Security,
>Medicare, etc. ) decreased or stayed constant.  
Sorry Joshua, but I think you are wrong.  If you wish, I will go to
the library and retrieve some of the figures for you, but I think they
are available, even in Germany.
Defense spend did go up under Reagan, as I said before, but so did
social spending, even outside of "entitlements" like Medicare and
Social Security.  
Incidently, what would be your rationale for excluding "entitlement"
programs, anyway?  DO you not consider that to be social spending?  I
certainly do.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"If environmentalists  were to invent a disease to bring 
human populations back to sanity, it would probably be 
something like AIDS."
     - Earth First newsletter,  December 1989, 
	Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.

api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote for all to see:
>In article <3285212E.2912B584@math.nwu.edu>,
>	Leonard Evens  writes:
>>Actually both the major newspapers I read, the N. Y. Times and the
>>Chicago Tribune also got the story right.  I didn't check what the
>>typical local TV news sations said, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
>>exaggerated.   If Mr. Lermenko insists on getting his news from shoddy
>>sources, he is going to continue to get shoddy news.
>
>Speaking of local news.. a few years ago a local news station broke a story on
>a toxic waste spill.  Hundreds of pounds of Sodium Chloride had been spilled on
>the highway!  Toxic Sodium Chloride!!!
>
>BTW, My last name starts with an I not an L
I remember being in Denver on night on a trip and hearing of a truck
carrying liquid nitrogen was involved in an accident.  The police
evacuated for miles around, noting that "that stuff can suck the
oxygen right out of the air"!
Regards, Harold
----
"If environmentalists  were to invent a disease to bring 
human populations back to sanity, it would probably be 
something like AIDS."
     - Earth First newsletter,  December 1989, 
	Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.

Jay Hanson  wrote for all to see:
>charliew wrote:
>
>> you're taking up a lot of bandwidth with this crap.  We've
>> all had ample opportunity to learn of your opinion about the
>> connection between entropy and food production.  Many of us
>> are not convinced, no matter how many times you post your
>> same senseless, extremely long document.
>
>charliew, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANYTHING I WRITE!
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>          PLEASE PUT ME IN YOUR KILLFILE!
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
>
>I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
>
>That includes you, jw, Harold and McCarthy -- so far.
>
>Jay
If you are referring to me, I am sorry you do not agree with me, but I
admit you could be correct in that the best thing for you is to no
longer read what I post.  I think that is an excellent idea, which you
should pursue with vigor.
I will not necessarily be doing the same, but I may, on occasion.
Regards, Harold
----
"If environmentalists  were to invent a disease to bring 
human populations back to sanity, it would probably be 
something like AIDS."
     - Earth First newsletter,  December 1989, 
	Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.

ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote for all to see:
>On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:10:22 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>In 1983, the year I left Denver, was the first year that interest on 
>>my savings account was taxed.
>
>Gee, I don't remember ever not paying taxes on interest, but you might
>be right. So? I thought you socialists dudes wanted to tax everything
>in sight :-)
You are correct.  Interest on savings has always been taxable in the
US (though at times, I think variable percentages have been
deductible).  
As a matter of interest, it has been a Republican idea that savings
interest should be tax free (as in Japan) to encourage accumulation of
capital and lower interest rates.  A few, like Dick Armey, even argue
that savings themselves should be deductible.
[edited]
Regards, Harold
----
"If environmentalists  were to invent a disease to bring 
human populations back to sanity, it would probably be 
something like AIDS."
     - Earth First newsletter,  December 1989, 
	Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.

ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote for all to see:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:10 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold
>Brashears) wrote:
>
>>I have no idea what elemental sodium would be used for in weapons
>>production.  Does someone have a clue?
>
>The only thing I know of is as a coolant in nuclear submarine
>reactors. But that is only a tiny amount of sodium.
Thank you, I forgot about that.
Regards, Harold
----
"If environmentalists  were to invent a disease to bring 
human populations back to sanity, it would probably be 
something like AIDS."
     - Earth First newsletter,  December 1989, 
	Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.

Get a free copy of the only newsletter reporting on environmental issues
facing the exploration and production sector of the petroleum industry
at:    http://www.epeonline.com

		I'm curious to learn more about the use of biomass for 
energy and wha types of biomass would best be suited for the task.
-- 
Tyler M Gray
puddy@iastate.edu

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.
Regards, Harold
----
"If environmentalists  were to invent a disease to bring 
human populations back to sanity, it would probably be 
something like AIDS."
     - Earth First newsletter,  December 1989, 
	Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.