Newsgroup sci.energy 55766

Directory

In <563bst$826@news-2.csn.net> cpollard@csn.net (Chris Pollard) writes:
>
>net.com> <01bbbfa0$4917f500$89d0d6cc@masher>
<54je4g$cja@newsy.ifm.liu.se> <558bmk$d9u@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>
<55bupq$qmt@news.inforamp.net> <327A1D06.2B54@ilhawaii.net>
<55dfco$7fk_001@pm3-134.hal-pc.org> <327C10C0.B60@ilhawaii.net>
<55n2nt$6vd@agate.berkele
>
>
>y.edu> <327F90FA.340A@ilhawaii.net> <55oiec$fr7@news.inforamp.net>
<3281410D.6B45@ilhawaii.net> <5636jr$5e5@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>
>
>Distribution: 
>
>jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:  _Limits to Growth_  predicted, in 1972, that the 
>: world would run 
>:       --out of gold by 1981.
>:       --out of mercury by 1985. 
>:       --out of tin by 1987. 
>:       --out of zinc by 1990. 
>:       --out of oil by 1992. 
>:       --out of copper by 1993.
>:       --out of lead by 1993.
>:       --out of natural gas by 1993.
>Yes and a lot of people read the book and changed the way they did
things
>- so it might have happened if they didn't write the book!
Did you just make it up?
The global economy (fortunately) is not *that* sensitive to a 
fashionable book... No, this is not at all what happened.
Consumption and production kept increasing, subject to 
the usual laws of supply and demand. Oil went up
in price - because of OPEC - so exploration was well 
rewarded - so more oil and gas was
discovered than was consumed - so OPEC failed and
oil prices went down again. Gold went up in price - so mines
that would not have been profitable before became
profitable - so production increased, and the price
was held down. Fiberoptics and satellites reduced 
the need for copper - so copper price fell. Etc.

My Web page does not refer to the IIASA report on food but it will.  I rely on
a report "How Much Land can ten billion spare for nature?" by Paul
Waggoner.  I hope to include it in my Web site shortly, but I have
been hoping that for some time now.
I do not agree with what I take to be one of Julian Simon's sometime
points - that there are no limits at all.  I do accept his evidence
that we aren't close.
-- 
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 <32872091.3350879@news.midtown.net> alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) writes:
>
>On 10 Nov 1996 01:57:37 GMT, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>
>>The "we" and the "billions" are the *same people* here; naturally, 
>>it is easier for 6 billion to do the job than for 300 million.
>>
>>When there are 30 billion, they'll do better still.
>
>What "job" are these people trying to do, aside from keeping pace 
>with their own population growth?  
The "job" definition was contained in the lines (not mine)
that you snipped...
As I recall, it was said there that people in the 12th
century were starving (an exaggeration, but in
some years they were); the "job" would then
be feeding the global population. More people
can do it much easier - even though there are more
mouths to feed. This is due to various effects of cooperation.
Four hands can do *more than twice* the work of two hands -
for many, many reasons. One of them is division of labor;
another is economy of scale; still another is
that *two heads are better than one*.
E.g., suppose each of the two heads has an idea
that could increase the output 20 percent.
They pool the ideas - and the output increases
by 44 percent (1.2*1.2 = 1.44).
I.e., *per capita* output is 20 percent more
than it would be if there was one person with
one idea. But it may well be that each of the two
ideas could not be implemented *at all* by
one person. 
>Growth-addiction never allows us 
>to stop and breathe (as a society), and it prevents us from truly
>refining the quality of our economy, since so much effort is put into
>growing it.  It's like Sisyphus forever pushing the stone up the hill.
Growth or no growth, daily bread has to be always produced
again. This fact of life is not at all due to growth.
Getting up, brushing your teeth are also among
such cyclical, Sysiphus-like tasks. If you feel tragic about
it, perhaps writing a tragedy would help.
>
>You claim we need more and more people to "live better", yet you 
>offer no lucid explanation for why this is so. 
I think I do. See above.
> If you inherited a
>pristine desert island, would your first order of business be to pack
>it with as many people as possible so you could "live better?"  
Of course! This is what _Robinson Crusoe_ is all about:
yearning for company. First he is all alone, going half-crazy,
but surviving by prayer and hard work;
then Man Friday appears; then
others; then return to civilization follows - and
each step makes life more worthwhile.
(As I recall, Crusoe's real-life prototype, Alexander Selkirk,
actually went mad from loneliness.)
>How is the Earth any different except for the scale?
Same thing. The more the merrier. 
>As for more people doing a job better, how well would a team of 90
>baseball players do, vs. 9?  The old adage "too many cooks in the
>kitchen" comes to mind.
But more kitchens can be built - a restaurant - a chain
of restaurants.
>  Every time a fly ball was hit, a dozen
>players would collide trying to catch it, and most of the players
>would not have anything to do except yield to the better ones. 
Then split into many teams; or invent a new game.
>A team (and an economy) will cease to function unless it respects 
>the physical limits of the playing field.
One can do better than respect the physical limits:
expand  them. People choose their
playing fields - and make their playing fields -
and their games, too.
It is all a matter of what is assumed to be constant and 
what is variable. If you count mouths and forget to
count hands, or if you hoard your seed grain, instead of 
sowing it, then you are a neomalthusian.

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>The big take-off in fish farming is in the last 15 years, so I don't
>know if enough historical statistics havve accumulated.
Possibly, but may take some compilation.
Until someone does this job, we have to rely on fragments of information.
One example is salmon farming in Norway: it has been so successful that 
that old spoilsport, the EU, had to step in to protect the inflated price
of that premium fish from the over-efficient Norwegians turning it into
an ordinary commodity.  Salmon farming in Tasmania has also been very 
successful and salmon steak is now standard supermarket item in Australia,
although not very cheap yet as Australia has restrictions on fish imports.
George Antony

In <32851B86.812@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson 
writes: 
>
>jw wrote:
> 
>-> *If* a hypothetical team went from 3 members to 4, 5, ...9,
>-> then to 10, 11, ... 89; and gained in performance
>-> each time it increased, *then* a reasonable
>-> (though not infallible) extrapolation would predict it
>-> doing even better at 90.
>
>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
>
>Do we get some sort of prize if we fill the truck faster?
Two points: 
(1) you are missing the logical thread.
Past gain in performance was not the issue:
extrapolating it was.
(2) as for your horrible phrase
"Filling the dump truck with dead babies faster" -
you couldn't be more wrong factually.
Infant mortality has been *falling* as population 
increased.
It is one of the proudest indicators of our wonderful 
progress.
E.g., in India, infant mortality declined
from 146 per 1,000 live births in 1961 to 74 in 1993:
thus, it has been cut in half in 32 years!
*This* is what I mean by "gain in performance"!
Let us stay on course - and fill the dump truck
faster with dead malthusian prophecies.

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>In article  antonyg@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) writes:
> > [re the (in)famous Limits to Growth book, addressing a fan of the latter]
> > Are you suggesting that the effect of the book was more important than that
> > of the resource-price hikes and the subsequent drop in demand (absolute and
> > relative to unit GDP) and increased exploration turning up new resources ?
>Only a few of the minerals mentioned had price hikes.  The five
>involved in the Ehrlich-Simon 1980-1990 bet all had price decreases.
I suppose it all depends between what points in time.  Occasional jumps 
of price provide great incentive for conservation and exploration even
if followed by a decline, for they remind us of the uncertainties involved.
Specifically, the price of the favourite bugbear of doomsayers, oil, shot up 
twice, in 1973/4 and in 1979, and has been pretty low for some time now.  
Still, those events have transformed the energy efficiency of industries 
worldwide, triggered an exploration boom, and contributed to the eventual
fall in price.
George Antony

Nick Eyre  wrote:
>>Yes. You seperate out the remaining U235 and the PU 239 and use them as 
>>reactor fuel. Lots of people are against the idea for reasons I haven't 
>>been able to fathom.
>How about these four for starters.  There hardly is any U235, the world
>already has far more PU239 than it needs, the whole process creates more
>radioactive waste and emissions, and it is the main route to nuclear
>weapons proliferation.  
Reprocessing of commercial reactor wastes has *never* been the
route to nuclear weapons proliferation.  Countries have always
found it easier to build reactors specifically for Pu production in
order to enter the nuclear club.
Commercial waste could be a source of proliferation in the future
(for example, had Iraq had access to reactor-grade Pu, it could
have used its calutrons to separate enough Pu239 for 50 to 100
bombs per year.)  
Of course, in the putative future "hydrogen economy", every
little country will have a ready supply of deuterium (made during
electrolysis or liquifaction of hydrogen at low marginal cost), so
proliferation will be dead easy anyway.
     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

Jay Hanson  writes:
>jw wrote:
>> Are paychecks supposed to be capital now?
>Yes, they always were.
Yours must be bigger than mine.
:-)
Cheers,  Ian S.
P.S.  For the uninitiated, simple money or cash is not capital
until you have enough of it.  It's analogous to the truism:
"Data is not information."  [And information is not knowledge;
and knowledge is not wisdom. -- I'd acknowledge the quote if
I could remember who coined it. :-) ]
-- 
Ian Staples                        MS-Mail: staplesi@dpi.qld.gov.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054 MAREEBA          Phone  : +61 (0)70 928 555 Home 924 847
Queensland Australia 4880            Fax  : +61 (0)70 923 593   "   "   "

Do power utilities use heat engines such as Rankine engines in any part 
of the power generation cycle? It seems that these technologies could 
make good use of the waste heat that can be seen drifting into the sky 
from cooling towers...
If they don't, why not?

John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: In article <562o2p$11f6@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
:   
:  > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
:  > : Why do you ascribe the Reagan era debts to Reagan and not to the
:  > : Democratic congresses of the era - as we admirers of Reagan do?
:  > 
:  > Probably because those congresses consistently gave Reagan less than he
:  > asked for.  
: Unfortunately, entitlement programs don't require Congressional
: appropriations once established.  There was no way Reagan could rein
: them in, because there were no bills to veto.
Not much of an excuse.  At least his admin didn't think that was much of
a barrier.  They introduced a lot of bills.  Lots of them were intended
to dismantle programs which had lifted millions of people out of
poverty.  
--
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:
: Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
: > What has this to do with climate and the environment?  Everything.  At
: > stake is a productive planet which will _last_.  This does indeed
: > require a nontrivial amount of cultural and socioeconomic adjustment.
: These are the first lines in the environmental bible.  Of course, it sounds
: so gay and innocent; who could possibly have a problem with it?   The book
: then goes to suggest forced population reduction, deindustrialization, and
: socialism.
: Our good Earth-Firster Andy has just published the last few chapters of the
: book, in which we are exhorted to become hunter-gatherers, to not consider
: a twelve hours a day spent gathering food as labor, and to spend what small
: amount of leisure time we have in serene comtemplation of nature as we
: crouch naked on a rock.
This is a total misrepresentation of what has been posted by us.  Try
again.
[rest drivel deleted]
--
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/

jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Oh, everything has serious side effects... 
: Fish farming is of course the answer.
Until the water the fish swim in is poisoned and the number of fish
taken is simply too large for _any_ approach.
--
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@dbtech.net) wrote:
: Agreed.  Of course, there are _real_ environmental problems out there, but
: the past few years have largely seen attention to them drowned in false
: claims and desires for social engineering.
Discuss the problems.  I would like to see this in your own words, at
length. 
--
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/

jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 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.
--
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/

: jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: :  _Limits to Growth_  predicted, in 1972, that the 
: : world would run 
: :       --out of gold by 1981.
: :       --out of mercury by 1985. 
: :       --out of tin by 1987. 
: :       --out of zinc by 1990. 
: :       --out of oil by 1992. 
: :       --out of copper by 1993.
: :       --out of lead by 1993.
: :       --out of natural gas by 1993.
Chris Pollard (cpollard@csn.net) wrote:
: Yes and a lot of people read the book and changed the way they did things
: - so it might have happened if they didn't write the book!
Moreover, it was the absolute worst-case scenario.  The people doing the
quoting always forget to tell you that.  If, of course, they actually
read the work in question and not someone else's review.
--
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/

jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <55te4l$26mg@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce
: Scott TOK ) writes: 
: >
: >It is more than just energy.  It is the ecological productivity of the
: >planet which is at stake.
: "Ecological productivity" is meaningless.
: Planets do not produce, people do.
Can I quote you??  That would be .sig material.
By productivity I mean the annual production of edible material by
_Nature_. 
--
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/

jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <55tf6r$26mg@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce
: Scott TOK ) writes: 
: >Not so fast.  Many people have woke up to the fact that our present
: >system is one in which people have to work twice as long and twice as
: >hard to attain the standard of living their parents did, 
: Twice? No, most of them do not work 80 hours a week.
: Some do, but some of the parents did.
: And their standard of living is much higher.
: They live several years longer, on the average,
: than the parent generation. Did the parents have the Internet?
: VCRs? Cellular phones? FAXes?  Could they afford as
: much air flight?  What percent of the parents'
: generation went to college? The parents paid as much 
: for a calculator as the children pay for a PC,
: more powerful than the mainframes of the parents'
: generation. How much would the parents' gasguzzler be
: worth now - except possibly as an antique? The parents' air
: and water were more polluted. Etc. etc. Life is improving,
: whether people notice it or not.
Life is much more than just consumerism.
Gadgets are pretty irrelevant considering how badly millions of people
in the US are housed, clothed, and fed.  Even if by some stretch you can
argue that the middle class has held ground -- you have to face the fact
that in most locales two wage earners are needed to hold down a house
for the family.
That is a doubling of household working hours even if the number of
hours/week/worker is constant.
Then you get to mention the millions of people who hame no home at all,
and the growing numbers who have no food or heating in the winter.
--
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:
: Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
: > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: > : Why do you ascribe the Reagan era debts to Reagan and not to the
: > : Democratic congresses of the era - as we admirers of Reagan do?
: > 
: > Probably because those congresses consistently gave Reagan less than he
: > asked for.  
: > 
: This is somewhat distorted.   Throughout the entire Reagan era, Congress
: continually passed budgets with less defense and more domestic spending
: than the President desired.
With good reason.
Nevertheless, the admin gutted the revenue system -- on purpose,
intended to sabotage the system because it couldn't get its way via due
legislative process (cf: Stockman).
What is that if not economic treason?
--
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:
: jw  wrote:
: >  (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes: 
: > >Not so fast.  Many people have woke up to the fact that our present
: > >system is one in which people have to work twice as long and twice as
: > >hard to attain the standard of living their parents did, 
: > 
: > Twice? No, most of them do not work 80 hours a week.
: > Some do, but some of the parents did.
: > And their standard of living is much higher.
: > They live several years longer, on the average,
: > than the parent generation. Did the parents have the Internet?
: > VCRs? Cellular phones? FAXes?  Could they afford as
: > much air flight?  What percent of the parents'
: > generation went to college? The parents paid as much 
: > for a calculator as the children pay for a PC,
: > more powerful than the mainframes of the parents'
: > generation. How much would the parents' gasguzzler be
: > worth now - except possibly as an antique? The parents' air
: > and water were more polluted. Etc. etc. Life is improving,
: > whether people notice it or not.
: Good points, all.  Also we might note that environmentalists traditionally
: want us to work harder and lower our standard of living.  It is a basic
: tenet of environmentalism.
Quotes here.  No-one says this except you guys parroting the
"enviro-nazi" nonsense.
Address the fact that the number of person-hours required to keep a home
has skyrocketed in the US over the last 3 to 4 decades.
--
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/

I wrote:
: >Try that in the US and you will find that all the land is owned, and you
: >will be in the tank for tresspassing.
: >Friesel's predators are the obvious ones: humans.  Lots of them with
: >guns. 
and Dan Sullivan (pimann@pobox.com) wrote:
[...]
: As for the noble savage metaphor (beginning with Adam and Eve in
: the Garden of Eden), one cannot gauge their conditions by the
: plight of today's savages who have been pushed back to the most
: inhospitable lands. Surely technology has made our lives better,
: but institutions of land monopoly have worsened the lives of
: those pushed to marginal lands or pushed off the land entirely.
Agreed.  This also applies to the unfortunates compelled by these wholly
artificial conditions to surrender more than half their income for the
privilege of living in 50 square meters of fllor space.  Not to mention
those who are consigned to the curbside.
--
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:
: Scott Nudds  wrote:
: > 
: > Scientists again line up to oppose 1997 blastoff
: > ------------------------------------------------
: > - Marilyn Meyer - Florida Today -
: > 
: >     Horst Poehler has been watching rocket launches for 37 years...
: The headline screams plurality, but the truth is one man hides while twenty
: thousand of his coworkers launch in full confidence.   Of course, the
: headline sounds a little different, doesn't it?
It sells papers.
Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with the guy in question playing it
safe.  Just as I'd like to play it safe and let you and your fellows do
the gambling concerning adulterated food for 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/

Adam Ierymenko (api@axiom.access.one.net) wrote:
: In article <01bbcb9d$c1399120$89d0d6cc@masher>,
: 	"Mike Asher"  writes:
SNIP...
: >So much for your conspiracy theories.
: 
: Hmm.. that doesn't quite put an end to conspiracy theories...  They do stand
: to make quite a bit of money from replacing CFCs, which are a cheap non-
: patented compound, with patented expensive compounds.
Hmm, but they are selling a lot LESS of the replacements, because
many of the former uses of CFCs have been replaced by other
processes.  Moreover, the things used in these replacement processes
are not (necessarily) provided by the same companies which sold
the CFCs.  Finally, they had to invest in new plants.  In net
it is unlikely that they are making more money on the replacements
than on the original CFCs.  So much for conspiracy theories.
Josh Halpern

jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: To draw this conclusion, one must vastly exaggerate the
: importance of natural resources.
: The mineral resources of the third, or underdeveloped,
: or backward, or poor, world, were given to it by the
: advanced West - which found the minerals, found
: the proper ways of extracting them, and found
: profitable uses for them.
: It is clear, then, who depended
: in whom. Wrt countries like Zaire, this is still
: quite true; but countries like India and Indonesia
: are climbing up from backwardness. They can
: more properly be called parts of the *developing*
: world now. The majority of the world's population 
: lives in such countries.
If I assume for purposes of argument that you are totally right...
Why, then, does their land and reseources not belong to them (I mean the
people, not the strongmen who get their insertion and support from
outside interests) now that they know how to extract the materials and
what they can do with them?
--
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/

Harry H Conover (conover@tiac.net) wrote:
: Steve Spence (sspence@castle.net) wrote:
: : small quantities can be produced from seawater with a solar panel. oh yeah,
: : then you have to compress it.
: How do you safely dispose of the Chlorine you produce with this process?
Distill the water first?  Yes, I know that is expensive.
--
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/

af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> Poehler, a retired senior scientist with decades of work in the
> space industry, fears the rocket will explode, the concussion will
> vaporize some of the nuclear fuel, and winds from the ocean will
> spread a potentially cancer-causing radioactive mist over Brevard
> County and other parts of Florida.
That is odd since such a nuclear thermal power source is a massive
piece of metal. To crack open a thick piece of metal you need a
concentrated explosion and not something like the challenger accident,
an impressive fireball with lots of burning fuel. The rocket would
have to detonate like a kilo of plastique explosive right on the
nuclear powersource. Its fuel simply cant detonate in such a way, its
a chemical impossibility. 
> NASA scientists say yes, Pohler's scenario would be devastating -
> but it won't happen.
How could it ever happen?
> The first time, a navigational satellite performed as designed, and
> the spacecraft burned up on re-entry, releasing radioactive vapors
> over the Indian Ocean in April1964.
> After that accident, the protective coverings around the plutonium
> dioxide were redesigned, and since then no plutonium has been
> released.
> The second time, a radioactive heat source was retrieved intact
> after a meteorological craft failed in May1968.
> And finally, when the Apollo13 moon mission was aborted, the
> radioactive heat source aboard the craft fell undamaged deep into
> the Pacific Ocean, where it remains.
It can survive reentering at orbital speed, how could a break up of
the rocket destroy it?
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

cpollard@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>
>jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>:  _Limits to Growth_  predicted, in 1972, that the 
>: world would run 
>:       --out of gold by 1981.
>:       --out of mercury by 1985. 
>:       --out of tin by 1987. 
>:       --out of zinc by 1990. 
>:       --out of oil by 1992. 
>:       --out of copper by 1993.
>:       --out of lead by 1993.
>:       --out of natural gas by 1993.
>Yes and a lot of people read the book and changed the way they did things
>- so it might have happened if they didn't write the book!
Nice try, Chris, but no cigar. Use of all of those materials continued
upward throughout the period.  Of course some of the tin we're using
today was dug in Cornwall in pre-Roman times, which you wonder what
was going on at the Club of Rome when they convinced themselves they
were inventing recycling. 
A few of the things the Meadowses recommended were tried: regulations
forbidding this, laws forbidding that, and they fortunately had little
effect.  The effect they did have was bad: it caused great expense to
the law-abiding, and had no effect on those outside the law.
But while the dogs were barking the caravan moved on. The major
developments of industrial society kept going. As the ever more
efficent use of power, the production of greater value added from less
and less material, mass production on increasing scale, and
international sharing of markets for both production and consumption
all progressed, literacy spread; fertility rates dropped; the
percentage of the human race living in poverty declined steadily.
In 1969-71 the human race turned a corner as the percentage rate of
increase slowed for the first time in ten thousand years.  A teen-age
generation later, in 1986-90, the actual numerical of births dropped.
This means that about four years from now the number of new mothers in
the world will start to drop -- year after year after year.  A few
years after that the total number of mothers will start to drop. This
is not a guess: it is a count of people already born and now in their
early child-bearing years.
These things are all happening out in India, China, Kenya.  They have
nothing to do with people having read the stupid Meadows/Club of Rome
book.  They have to do with the spread of radio and television, which
tell people about the better life they can hope for for their
children, and perhaps for themselves.  
The major developers of change in the world are not a bunch of silly
academics with their braindead computer programs.  What makes change
is Avon Ladies knocking on the doors of huts and telling people that
soap will make their children smell nice, a day's wages can give you a
touch of lipstick like the women on the posters.
The Third World's greatest friend is neither Limits to Growth, nor the
AK-47.  The revolution in our lifetime is worldwide Proctor and
Gamble.  
                                   -dlj.

*Robert Stonehouse* wrote on Wed, 96-11-06 07:48 in sci.energy:
RS>how do they get all the power stations in phase with each other.
With difficulty. Once it has been achieved initially it becomes easy 
though. Yopu must realize that a synchronous generator getting out of 
phase becomes a motor, i.e. once locked into phase it stays locked. The 
grid is quite powerful compared to a single genartor and trying to 
switch it in before being synchronized will through all the plants 
fuses. The grid will always stay in sync with itself.
If however the grid as a whole is down, then starting it all up from 
sero is a real chore. The first two generators started might easily - 
as you indicated - cancel each other out destoying themselves in the 
process.
Tschö wa
                Axel

If you smoke but are concerned about the health risks of inhaling toxic 
combustion byproducts, check out http://www2.paltech/pure-vapor.
                          Bob Ssmith

me@myown.net wrote:
>Old UPS units are often discarded and replaced with new at failure,
>where to find cheap batteries? Will a car battery work?
No, car batteries will not work, they will only supply current for a
short period of time. You need deep discharge batteries. 
snip
UPS where not really designed to replace commerical sources of AC,
they are designed to provide filtering for lousy commerical AC,
provide no-break power between commerical AC and backup generators and
to provide enough power for a controlled shut down vs uncontroled
shutdown of electronic equipmen, at least that what I used them for in
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
work fine. There not really designed for to replace commerical power
for long periods of time, even through I have used them on line for 3
hours+,they could be used for that purpose, but the orginal intent was
as I described above.
jim

In article <01bbcce3$d2c9bea0$89d0d6cc@masher>,
Mike Asher  wrote:
>Paul Ehrlich is a fraud and a charlatan...   One of my favorite Ehrlich
>predictions is the one claiming US population would shrink to 22 million
>by 1999 (that's three years from now). Of course, that was after he
>predicted the starvation of 3 billion people worldwide by 1980.  And isn't
>the one who also predicted that residual DDT (whether or not we stopped use)
>would kill all the algae in the sea, and deprive us of 40% of our oxygen?
I requested references for these 3 claims but strangely there are none in your
response.  Should I assume these 3 claims are more fabrications?  
Andrew Taylor

Bob Falkiner  wrote:
OK, lets finish this foolishness once and for all:
1980 emissions  ~25 Million tons VOC
Power generation and          0.8 MTons
comfort heating
Highway sources                  5.8 Mtons
Off-highway sources.             3.8 Mtons 
 (Tractors, lawnmowers, chainsaws,
  personal generators)
Industrial generation            8.7 Mtons
(Petrol refinery, etc)
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)
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.  
> Th is is just one of many consumer beliefs that will have to be accepted
> as the typical automobile becomes so clean that it removes itself from
> the urban pollution equation. The consumer and government demand has
> been for reduced tailpipe emissions.  Now that 20 years of government
> bureaucracy has been built around this, how do we declare success, even
> after that we've achieved it?? 
Success in the ozone program is easy to measure, when air quality is
achieved, success is achieved.  We've not achieved success.  Progress
has been made, but sucess has not been achieved.
I'll even make the case that the standard that we are trying to achieve 
may need to be changed.  But it would be nice to live in a world where
children and elderly don't have to be lock-up indoors during the ozone
seasone.
> 
> This is going to be a case study in government rivalling the US space
> program!
> 
> > Now, how much cost do you estimate that the addition of features
> > like these would add to the cost of a basic $300 lawn mower?  (Of
> > course, the stores and manufacturers would simply love it...and
> > rental firms would boom since many people could not afford the
> > purchase price of such a product.
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, 
> > 
> > Then too, consider maintenance.  We already have a generation of
> > cars on the road in poor maintenance, since few mechanics are
> > capable of fixing them properly.  Why not add an entire fleet of
> > poorly functioning lawn mowers as well?
> > 
With Inspection and maintainence program for non-attainment areas,
I don't think we have fleets of poorly running cars.  Maybe you should
cross post over to one of the automobile groups and get their opinion
about their competancy.

In article <55vid3$i1p@osh1.datasync.com>,
Paul Farrar  wrote:
>In article <55tici$ivf@valhalla.comshare.com>,
>Mike Pelletier  wrote:
>...
>>The supply of food -- 50 years ago, 3,000,000 Americans were farming
>>and producing enough food to feed the country.  Now 30,000 Americans
>>are farming *less* land and producing enough food to feed America,
>US Farm employment:
> 1940   8,995,000
> 1992   2,936,000
>Dept. of Agric. & Bureau of the Census, via 1995 World Almanac
This does not, in itself, contradict his statement.  50 years ago, if 
one takes the most productive 3,000,000 farmers, were they producing 
enough food to feed the country?  Are the most productive 30,000 doing 
so now?  
If I recall correctly, the U.S. produces a fair amount of food for 
export and for fodder.
>Paul Farrar
snark

In article ,
John McCarthy  wrote:
>Scott Susin includes:
>     The price of fish has increased much more dramatically when
>     compared to the price of chicken.  Certainly demand for
>     chicken is increasing for some of the same reasons.  And I
>     would guess that technological trends are similar.
>     Here are some more figures:
>     % change in price, 1970-1993 (Producer Price Index)
>     Finished Goods:   317%
>     Chicken:          178%
>     Fish:             528%
>I think Susin is mistaken about chicken.  Chickens have improved
>enormously in the amount of meat you get for a pound of chicken feed.
>The technology of raising chickens has also improved enormously, i.e. the
>machines that feed them and remove the chicken shit.
[snip]
Why is he mistaken?  He's saying that the price of fish has gone up 
considerably more than chicken.  I suspect that, in constant dollars, 
it has actually dropped (is that your point?).
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
snark

Hi,
We would like to network with others concerned with either gas
drilling or gas pipeline concerns, or both. While we have already
gathered some information, additional info or other help would be 
much appreciated. 
In particular, we are looking for info on offshore drilling and
natural gas extraction, offshore/onshore gas pipeline problems, and
what social and environmental issues should be examined.
The project is called the "Sable Offshore Energy Project." The
companies involved are: offshore - Mobil, Shell and Imperial Oil; and
onshore - Westcoast Energy Inc., PanEnergy Corp and Mobil. (Westcoast
Energy Inc. owns or has a part in the following companies: Westcoast
Energy International, Westcoast Power, Westcoast Gas, Pacific Northern
Gas Pipeline, Pacific Coast Energy, Foothills Pipe Lines, Union Gas,
Empire State Pipeline, Central Gas Ontario, Central Gas Manitoba,
Central Gas Alberta and Central Gas British Columbia.)
The pipeline is called  the "Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline,"  and
it will be bringing natural gas ashore via underwater pipeline from
near Sable Island onto mainland Nova Scotia. A gas processing plant
will be built onshore, to separate the various components of the
natural gas. The methane part will be transported via pipelines across
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Maine, to Dracut, Massachusetts (near
Boston).
Thanks,
North Shore Anti-Pipeline Group (Nova Scotia)
         *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
            NORTH SHORE ANTI-PIPELINE GROUP
                    Statement of Purpose
The North Shore Anti-Pipeline Group (NSAPG) opposes the
proposed extraction and distribution of Sable Island gas.
NSAPG is made up of landowners and concerned citizens who
oppose the Sable Gas Project, both off-shore and on-shore,
because this Project has the potential to cause:
....significant negative impacts on the peace of mind and
home spaces of rural landowners along the pipeline routes,
imposed without their consent;
....significant negative impacts on human health and safety;
....significant negative environmental impacts on the land
and the sea;
....significant negative impacts on the atmosphere, through
global warming;
....significant negative impacts on energy resources available
to present and future Nova Scotians.
NSAPG provides a forum for the discussion of these and other
concerns related to the Sable Gas Project.
Through meetings, research, public presentations, petitions,
press releases and so on, NSAPG seeks to develop a better
informed public who will come together to challenge and
ultimately stop the Sable Gas Project.
To contact NSAPG write: 
Citizens against the Sable Island Pipeline, 
P.O. Box 874, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, Canada B2H 5K7.
E-mail: greenweb@fox.nstn.ca 
(Messages will be passed on to NSAPG.)

Currently, I am taking a class called Energy and the Environment.  Recently,
our class talked about nuclear energy.  We talked about the good and the bad
of this subject.  I would like to know what the public thought about this
contraversial subject.  Is nuclear out?
-- 
Chuck S. Hilby
chilby@iastate.edu

Everything she knows is 
In Article<565uva$s7t@news.iastate.edu>,  writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>                              Shawn Renee Blaesing                          
>               Earth Science/Environmental Studies/Secondary Education      
>                              chlorine@iastate.edu  

Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
> 
> : Also we might note that environmentalists traditionally
> : want us to work harder and lower our standard of living.  It is a basic
> : tenet of environmentalism.
> 
> Quotes here.  No-one says this except you guys parroting the
> "enviro-nazi" nonsense.
Bruce, I'm suprised you didn't snap a finger-joint typing that nonsense. 
Every single day here, we have someone posting that we should give up our
"greed" and our excessive wants, to return to a more primitive society.  
This is simple echoing of the environmental leaders, who tell us over and
over that modern society consumes too much, that we should be happy with
less, not more.  
You want quotes?  I'll start with a couple from this group:
"..one American consumes as much energy as 531 Ethiopians. Why not start
with
reduction? "
     - Adam Lerymenko.    Sounds like a call to lower our standard of
living.
or, Andy (SDEF), who says we should have less, not more:
"Basically people who believe they have a right to all the techno baubles
they fill their lives with, and refuse to accept the proposition that they
should have less"
Andy also offers this little gem, in regards to modern society residents:
"OK they live a bit longer but what use is that as a measure of success?"
Of course, environmental leaders say the same thing.  Here's a quote from
Paul Ehrlich:
"We've already had too much economic growth in the United States.  Economic
growth...is the disease, not the cure."
or, from "Limits to Growth":
"As its third and final conclusion, the study suggests that overshoot and
collapse can be avoided only by... a cessation of economic growth"
or,
"We Norwegians need to realize that there is no room for increasing living
standards any more"
    - Thorbjørn Berntsen, the Environment Minister of Norway.
or, this bit from the Whole Earth Catalog,
"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or social change to come and
bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley"
or this little gem, by Maurice Strong, Sec. General of the Earth Summit at
Rio,
"It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class-- involving high meat intake, consumption of frozen
and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles,
small electric appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and
suburban housing-- are not sustainable."
Convinced yet?  Or should I trot out a few hundred more?

Pacifica Network News is now available on RealAudio at
http://www-2.realaudio.com/webactive/pacifica/
Pacifica News is a daily progressive non-corporately-sposored
half-hour program covering national and international news.
More info at http://www.pacifica.org/

X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Nov 11 13:45:19 1996 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 206.186.165.219 (dialin20.eagle.ca)
X-Authenticated-Sender: anacapa@eagle.ca
Lines: 28
Batteries are the heart of the UPS.
We actually manufacture a portable combined genset/ups/condtioner
that will supply computer power indefinitely to any power demand
you can see our homepage at
http://www.eagle.ca/~anacapa/index.html
In article <564r8s$793@news.ptd.net>,
    me@myown.net wrote:
> 
> Old UPS units are often discarded and replaced with new at failure,
> where to find cheap batteries? Will a car battery work?
> It won't keep the microwave or hot water heater going, but can anyone
> suggest ways to use the computer backup supplies 120V output wisely
> when the power goes down? What useful appliances would use the least
> power? Would it be better to use the output to recharge batteries for
> portable electronics or to use it directly with 120 VAC appliances?
> Either way there must be losses introduced changing the UPS battery
> voltage to 120VAC then back to the device. 
> ELECTRICAL CODE CAUTION: Do not connect directly to existing circuits
> as utility workers, thinking a line is not energized, may put an
> undesired resistive load on your UPS! They would be understandably
> reluctant to hook you back up to the grid...
> --
> can't remember my real email address since the electroshock treatments
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/           [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News]

Tim Jebb wrote:
> 
> Do power utilities use heat engines such as Rankine engines in any part
> of the power generation cycle? It seems that these technologies could
> make good use of the waste heat that can be seen drifting into the sky
> from cooling towers...
> 
> If they don't, why not?
Heat engines work off temperature differences.  The attractiveness of
using the engine decreases quickly as the temperature difference
decreases.  Most power stations are releasing their waste heat at
only a small amount above the ambient.  It is probable that in most
cases, it would be very expensive to use the heat going up the
cooling tower.
In Ontario, we use the lakes as a place to dump waste heat. There
are very strict regulations as to how much we can increase the
temperature of the lake.  The result is, the water we dump out
is so small an amount warmer than the water we pump in, it would
not be worthwhile to run any kind of heat engine off the difference.
-- 
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