| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Send Phys-l mailing list submissions to
phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
phys-l-request@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
phys-l-owner@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Phys-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Energy use (was CFLs) (Shapiro, Mark)
2. Re: Energy use (was CFLs) (Kilmer, Skip)
3. Re: Nuclear Reactors (Edmiston, Mike)
4. Re: Energy use (was CFLs) (marx@phy.ilstu.edu)
5. Re: Energy use (was CFLs) (Shapiro, Mark)
6. Re: Energy use (was CFLs) (ludwik kowalski)
7. Re: CFLs (James Mackey)
8. CFLs panned on Slashdot. (curtis osterhoudt)
9. Re: CFLs (Roger Haar)
10. Comparisons are Invidious (was Energy use) (Brian Whatcott)
11. Re: CFLs panned on Slashdot. (Bernard Cleyet)
12. Re: CFLs panned on Slashdot. (curtis osterhoudt)
13. Re: Energy use (was CFLs) (Hugh Haskell)
14. Re: Nuclear Reactors (Hugh Haskell)
15. Re: Energy use (was CFLs) (Shapiro, Mark)
16. Re: global temperatures (David Appell)
17. Re: global temperatures (David Appell)
18. Re: Nuclear Reactors (chuck britton)
19. Re: coal (David Appell)
20. Re: Energy use (Leon de Oliveira)
21. Mini laptops (Josh Gates)
22. Re: Nuclear Reactors (was: Global Temperatures)
(Spinozalens@aol.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:34:10 -0700
From: "Shapiro, Mark" <mshapiro@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
To: "'marx@phy.ilstu.edu'" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu>, 'Forum for Physics
Educators' <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<F7DA7E5896B79D4F8F7D01E5062D6988018EF9B1B36C@SFEXCH4.AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Question 1 -- what percentage of energy supply is domestic?
Question 2 -- what percentage of our GDP is production and what percentage is consumption?
Mark
Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
Professor of Physics, Emeritus
California State University, Fullerton
Phone: 714 278-3884
FAX: 714 278-5810
email: mshapiro@fullerton.edu
web: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~mshapiro
travel and family pictures:
http://community.webshots.com/user/mhshapiro
CSU-ERFA Website: http://csuerfa.org
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of marx@phy.ilstu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:20 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
I meant to add that we cannot lead the way to the development of new technologies without having the
economy and the energy supply to make that happen.
On 8 Apr 2009 at 14:07, marx@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
There is a strong correlation between GDP and energy use. We enjoy our standard of living and pay
for the energy we use to maintain that standard. There are many though that want us to revert to a
standard of living that this country hasn't seen for more than a century. That is ridiculous. What we
can do is find ways for people around the world to generate enough energy to improve their standard of
living - which would also go a long way to reduce the birth rate in many countries - without necessarily
causing great harm to the Earth.
On 8 Apr 2009 at 11:30, Rick Tarara wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shapiro, Mark" <mshapiro@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
I disagree with your analysis. By not charging the ratepayers for theI get really tired of this one as well--(and the percentage is falling
external costs, you reduce the incentive to conserve. Thereby driving the
cost up for everyone. Here in southern California we have tiered rates for
residential electric consumption to encourage conservation.
US energy policies have led to profligate consumption of energy. We have
about 5% of the world's population, yet we consume 25% of the world's
energy resources.
quickly as China rapidly moving to become king of the energy use hill). Our
energy use per person is about the same as Canada and Australia. Not too
far above Germany. Big, developed nations, use energy. Its why they are
developed. The larger the physical size of the country, the more energy
necessary to move people and goods. The more industry that resides within
the country, and the more that raw materials are mined, processed, and used
within a country, the higher the energy use. Switzerland seems to use no
energy--but it lives off the energy burned in France, Germany and Italy.
You also have population density and (more to your point) life-style
differences. If all Americans would put their family of four into a 1000
square foot apartment, with that apartment stacked on top of and surrounded
on all sides by other such apartments--sure the energy usage would drop.
Yes, we can use less energy--but I repeat that reducing by more than 25% is
tough. As a country of 300+ million people, stretching 3000 miles coast to
coast and 1000 miles border to border, with (still) the biggest economy in
the world and a 21st century technology, the U.S. does not do all that bad.
The problem is really not that the U.S. uses too much energy (OK, a little
too much), it is that the rest of the world uses too little to provide a
21st century living standard to their people. The comparison to be made is
between the developed world and the 'third world'--average out the
variations for population, area, population density, percentage of 'home
grown' economy versus imported resources and then do your comparisons.
Spare us, please, from the 5%--25% mantra. It really is not useful.
Rick
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:40:53 -0500
From: "Kilmer, Skip" <kilmers@greenhill.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<7A003A7D779A4C468013EBA8DE029DF80A742A78B5@ben.greenhill.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
ON NPR yesterday, I heard a number that surprised me a little that answers Q.2. 70% of our GDP comes from consumer spending (perhaps not quite the same as consumption.
Skip
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Shapiro, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:34 PM
To: 'marx@phy.ilstu.edu'; 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
Question 1 -- what percentage of energy supply is domestic?
Question 2 -- what percentage of our GDP is production and what percentage is consumption?
Mark
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:00:25 -0400
From: "Edmiston, Mike" <edmiston@bluffton.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Nuclear Reactors
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<D64323452018C54686455D5A09DAD9CB0BB2B92D@mail.bluffton.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Here's a sad but interesting story. A few years ago we came pretty
close to getting a 3MW Vestas wind turbine for Bluffton University. I
was one of the persons pushing for this, and I was appointed to the
planning committee. We did a preliminary study and found we had a good
site with reasonable wind. We found a group of investors willing to
loan the whole amount as a capital loan at a reasonable interest rate.
Our regular source of electricity is American Electric Power (AEP),
which in our area is 90% coal and 10% nuclear, and our rate is about
$0.07/kWhr.
We had two options for using the electricity from the turbine...
(Option 1) We could sell it to AEP for their generation cost of about
($0.02/kWhr) and then buy it back at $0.07/kWhr, thus saving $0.02/kWhr.
We estimated a 10-year payback period doing it this way. This would be
easiest to implement because we wouldn't need a substation/switch to use
AEP as campus backup when the turbine isn't enough.
(Option 2) Install a substation/switch that would allow us to use the
electricity directly (saving $0.07/kWhr on what we use, and selling any
excess to AEP at $0.02/kWhr), and also be able to supplement the turbine
from AEP (at $0.07/kWhr) when the wind was too low or the turbine was
down. This was more difficult for determining the payback period
because it's difficult to determine how often we would have electricity
to sell to AEP as opposed to needing to supplement the turbine by
purchasing electricity from AEP. Our estimate for this was about a 3 to
6-year payback.
Either option seemed like a no-brainer, we had a lot of community
support, and I thought we were going to do it. But the best site on
campus was west-southwest of the intercollegiate soccer field and
baseball field. The athletic department reasoned that late afternoon
sun coming through the turbine blades would cast flickering shadows on
the playing fields during games. That killed the program. The fear
that an athletic event would occasionally get flicking shadows during a
game killed what would have been an excellent investment in alternative
electric energy for the university.
Since that time we have had a change in the administration, and I am
trying to rekindle interest in a turbine, but movement is slow.
This is just one example that shows how difficult it can be to use
"alternative energy" even in situations for which the economics looks
quite favorable.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:01:46 -0500
From: marx@phy.ilstu.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Message-ID: <49DCCA6A.20125.5F746923@marx.phy.ilstu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
For answers and more data, please see my PowerPoint I use in my energy course...
http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/~marx/phy207/High_Energy_Society.ppt
On 8 Apr 2009 at 13:34, Shapiro, Mark wrote:
Question 1 -- what percentage of energy supply is domestic?
Question 2 -- what percentage of our GDP is production and what percentage is consumption?
Mark
Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
Professor of Physics, Emeritus
California State University, Fullerton
Phone: 714 278-3884
FAX: 714 278-5810
email: mshapiro@fullerton.edu
web: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~mshapiro
travel and family pictures:
http://community.webshots.com/user/mhshapiro
CSU-ERFA Website: http://csuerfa.org
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of marx@phy.ilstu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:20 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
I meant to add that we cannot lead the way to the development of new technologies without having the
economy and the energy supply to make that happen.
On 8 Apr 2009 at 14:07, marx@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
There is a strong correlation between GDP and energy use. We enjoy our standard of living and pay
for the energy we use to maintain that standard. There are many though that want us to revert to a
standard of living that this country hasn't seen for more than a century. That is ridiculous. What we
can do is find ways for people around the world to generate enough energy to improve their standard of
living - which would also go a long way to reduce the birth rate in many countries - without necessarily
causing great harm to the Earth.
On 8 Apr 2009 at 11:30, Rick Tarara wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shapiro, Mark" <mshapiro@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
I disagree with your analysis. By not charging the ratepayers for theI get really tired of this one as well--(and the percentage is falling
external costs, you reduce the incentive to conserve. Thereby driving the
cost up for everyone. Here in southern California we have tiered rates for
residential electric consumption to encourage conservation.
US energy policies have led to profligate consumption of energy. We have
about 5% of the world's population, yet we consume 25% of the world's
energy resources.
quickly as China rapidly moving to become king of the energy use hill). Our
energy use per person is about the same as Canada and Australia. Not too
far above Germany. Big, developed nations, use energy. Its why they are
developed. The larger the physical size of the country, the more energy
necessary to move people and goods. The more industry that resides within
the country, and the more that raw materials are mined, processed, and used
within a country, the higher the energy use. Switzerland seems to use no
energy--but it lives off the energy burned in France, Germany and Italy.
You also have population density and (more to your point) life-style
differences. If all Americans would put their family of four into a 1000
square foot apartment, with that apartment stacked on top of and surrounded
on all sides by other such apartments--sure the energy usage would drop.
Yes, we can use less energy--but I repeat that reducing by more than 25% is
tough. As a country of 300+ million people, stretching 3000 miles coast to
coast and 1000 miles border to border, with (still) the biggest economy in
the world and a 21st century technology, the U.S. does not do all that bad.
The problem is really not that the U.S. uses too much energy (OK, a little
too much), it is that the rest of the world uses too little to provide a
21st century living standard to their people. The comparison to be made is
between the developed world and the 'third world'--average out the
variations for population, area, population density, percentage of 'home
grown' economy versus imported resources and then do your comparisons.
Spare us, please, from the 5%--25% mantra. It really is not useful.
Rick
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:47:47 -0700
From: "Shapiro, Mark" <mshapiro@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators' <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<F7DA7E5896B79D4F8F7D01E5062D6988018F1281323C@SFEXCH4.AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
That number is essentially correct. We have been a consumption-driven economy for some time, so it's not surprising that we are in such an economic pickle!
Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
Professor of Physics, Emeritus
California State University, Fullerton
Phone: 714 278-3884
FAX: 714 278-5810
email: mshapiro@fullerton.edu
web: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~mshapiro
travel and family pictures:
http://community.webshots.com/user/mhshapiro
CSU-ERFA Website: http://csuerfa.org
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Kilmer, Skip
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
ON NPR yesterday, I heard a number that surprised me a little that answers Q.2. 70% of our GDP comes from consumer spending (perhaps not quite the same as consumption.
Skip
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Shapiro, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:34 PM
To: 'marx@phy.ilstu.edu'; 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
Question 1 -- what percentage of energy supply is domestic?
Question 2 -- what percentage of our GDP is production and what percentage is consumption?
Mark
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:53:17 -0400
From: ludwik kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <A0305D2E-8CC3-431A-8A3E-55748A1B7E59@mail.montclair.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I hope no one will object this initiative.
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/371energy.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physics teacher and an amateur journalist.
Updated links to publications and reviews are at:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/ http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_opeds.html
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/revcom.html
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:57:14 -0500
From: James Mackey <jmackey@harding.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] CFLs
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<150dc4b90904081457n706d1b19j61c0421227ecf3aa@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I have sitting on my desk right now a sack of 6 CFL's that all died within 6
months. There are GE's, Sylvania's, and Sunbeam's bulbs. This has been my
experience with CFLs over the last 3 years. I am about to go back to
incandescents which are much cheaper, by my rough calculations, about 1/2
the cost including the more energy use and purchase price. These were used
in interior fixtures except for one bulb which lasted as long a any of the
others. I would like to be able to justify CFLs but based on my small
sample, they do not justify their price. I have not even included the
disposal problem, since they all (I believe) have small amounts of mercury
in the bulb. If these are the bulbs of the future, they clearly need
additional work!
Waiting for LED bulbs to cheapen!
James Mackey
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:19 PM, <lhodges@iastate.edu> wrote:
I use CFLs in some places, but I'm very disappointed in theirlifetimes...not
even close to "7X longer." More like the same life as incandescent. If it
weren't for the extreme heat that the incand. in the bathroom give off for
the
same light, I'd go back. CFL ballasts need some vast improvements, you may
save
on the electric bill, but you pay $$ for the product.
I've been using CFLs for over 20 years, since they were fairly new and
unknown
but available at some stores (like electric-supply stores). I bought every
type
I could find (GE, Sylvania, Lites of America, Philips, etc.) and kept
records on
them. I used some in our unheated garage, leaving them on all the time
except
for turning them off several times a day for a few minutes. All but one
brand
(Lites of America) easily lasted the 10,000 hours claimed. So I've placed
them
in all the light fixtures I could, where they last under normal use for
many
years. I don't use them outside (slow to brighten up in cold weather) and
don't
use them with dimmer switches. Several are in locations where they are on
for
several hours every night. I'm very pleased with them. Since they aren't
burning out I haven't bought any for a few years - maybe they aren't as
good -
but I suspect many users just want something to complain about.
Along similar lines, when the low-flush toilets became available, there
were
many complaints about them from homeowners forced to use them. As I had
good
working toilets I didn't pay much attention to them. Then one day I
decided one
of our toilets which had never been a good flusher, for some reason, ought
to be
replaced. The new low-flush toilet, to my surprise, was excellent, and
remains
the best toilet in our house.
Laurent Hodges
writing from the inside of his passive solar home, heated for the last few
days
exclusively by the sun, despite the cold temperatures.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: curtis osterhoudt <flutzpah@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Phys-l] CFLs panned on Slashdot.
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <917127.98119.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/08/2125250
/************************************
Down with categorical imperative!
flutzpah@yahoo.com
************************************/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:23:34 -0700
From: Roger Haar <haar@physics.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] CFLs
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <49DD23E6.6050909@physics.arizona.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi,
I do not have a lot of light bulbs with screw bases. But my driveway
light is on all night every night. With incandescents a bulb would last
4-6 months and the CFL goes a couple of years. In the bathroom the
CFL's have been in for 4-5 years without fail.
I wish I could re-lamp a few places in the house to the best of the
florescent fixtures T8 or even better T5. (The number is the tube
diameter in 1/8's of an inch.)
Thanks
Roger
James Mackey wrote:
I have sitting on my desk right now a sack of 6 CFL's that all died within 6
months. There are GE's, Sylvania's, and Sunbeam's bulbs. This has been my
experience with CFLs over the last 3 years. I am about to go back to
incandescents which are much cheaper, by my rough calculations, about 1/2
the cost including the more energy use and purchase price. These were used
in interior fixtures except for one bulb which lasted as long a any of the
others. I would like to be able to justify CFLs but based on my small
sample, they do not justify their price. I have not even included the
disposal problem, since they all (I believe) have small amounts of mercury
in the bulb. If these are the bulbs of the future, they clearly need
additional work!
Waiting for LED bulbs to cheapen!
James Mackey
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:19 PM, <lhodges@iastate.edu> wrote:
_______________________________________________I use CFLs in some places, but I'm very disappointed in theirlifetimes...not
even close to "7X longer." More like the same life as incandescent. If it
weren't for the extreme heat that the incand. in the bathroom give off for
the
same light, I'd go back. CFL ballasts need some vast improvements, you may
save
on the electric bill, but you pay $$ for the product.
I've been using CFLs for over 20 years, since they were fairly new and
unknown
but available at some stores (like electric-supply stores). I bought every
type
I could find (GE, Sylvania, Lites of America, Philips, etc.) and kept
records on
them. I used some in our unheated garage, leaving them on all the time
except
for turning them off several times a day for a few minutes. All but one
brand
(Lites of America) easily lasted the 10,000 hours claimed. So I've placed
them
in all the light fixtures I could, where they last under normal use for
many
years. I don't use them outside (slow to brighten up in cold weather) and
don't
use them with dimmer switches. Several are in locations where they are on
for
several hours every night. I'm very pleased with them. Since they aren't
burning out I haven't bought any for a few years - maybe they aren't as
good -
but I suspect many users just want something to complain about.
Along similar lines, when the low-flush toilets became available, there
were
many complaints about them from homeowners forced to use them. As I had
good
working toilets I didn't pay much attention to them. Then one day I
decided one
of our toilets which had never been a good flusher, for some reason, ought
to be
replaced. The new low-flush toilet, to my surprise, was excellent, and
remains
the best toilet in our house.
Laurent Hodges
writing from the inside of his passive solar home, heated for the last few
days
exclusively by the sun, despite the cold temperatures.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:41:05 -0500
From: Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [Phys-l] Comparisons are Invidious (was Energy use)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <49DD2801.9070706@sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
It's easy to suppose that the U.S enjoys a world-topping standard of living.
It appears however, that the US ranks several down from the chart-toppers.
Last I recall it was one of the Scandinavian countries that enjoyed
that slot.
It's easy to suppose we have the best medical care on Earth - but it
turns out our life expectancy is rather shorter than that of several
other nationals, though here it is bought at a unit health cost per GDP
greater than anyplace else, despite the considerable population holes in
coverage.
Some others tend to have an unfair advantage in this health care area -
no matter how poor, they get pre-natal visits and mothers who can stay
home for the perinatal period.
That lifts the numbers at the front-end, apparently. Think France, or
Canada.
Brian W
marx@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
Here, here!!
There is a strong correlation between GDP and energy use. We enjoy our standard of living and pay
for the energy we use to maintain that standard. There are many though that want us to revert to a
standard of living that this country hasn't seen for more than a century. That is ridiculous. What we
can do is find ways for people around the world to generate enough energy to improve their standard of
living - which would also go a long way to reduce the birth rate in many countries - without necessarily
causing great harm to the Earth.
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:50:15 -0700
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] CFLs panned on Slashdot.
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Cc: Nancy Seese <nancyseese@redshift.com>
Message-ID: <3DD61299-046C-4677-B8CC-36E160AEDEDC@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
The bad news: the utilities have to generate the equivalent of 28
watts (that is, 28 VA of apparent power for you EEs out there) to
light that bulb. Until they fix these issues, I'll hold on to my
incandescents and carbon arc lamps, thanks."
----------------
rubbish, the utilities already compensate for that using
capacitors. Furthermore, the CFLs's P/S technique is the same as
that of the P/Ss for computers and UPSs. If the users obeyed the
label warnings, they'd get the advertised life. However, do not
stock up on CFLs! bc predicts they'll be obsolete in a few years,
i.e. about the time the currently in use CFLs die.
bc happy w/ his recessed soffit LED lamps. And unpresciently stocked
up!! Two big boxes of CFLs
p.s. considering the incandescent technology is "post" mature (>100
years) and CFLs are nearly cutting edge comparatively, I think they
are doing VERY well. Their soon obsolescence by LED is a great
example of the acceleration of tech. innovation.
On 2009, Apr 08, , at 15:07, curtis osterhoudt wrote:
cut
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/08/2125250
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: curtis osterhoudt <flutzpah@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] CFLs panned on Slashdot.
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Cc: Nancy Seese <nancyseese@redshift.com>
Message-ID: <60298.24528.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Yes, slashdot is often entertaining, but the level of science there is often absurd (though sometimes superb). I often find interesting and new information, but I simply can't treat anything I read there as unvarnished truth. As one poster put it, "As someone who teaches physics for a living, the Slashdot summary is making my eyes bleed."
/************************************
Down with categorical imperative!
flutzpah@yahoo.com
************************************/
________________________________
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Cc: Nancy Seese <nancyseese@redshift.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 4:50:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] CFLs panned on Slashdot.
The bad news: the utilities have to generate the equivalent of 28
watts (that is, 28 VA of apparent power for you EEs out there) to
light that bulb. Until they fix these issues, I'll hold on to my
incandescents and carbon arc lamps, thanks."
----------------
rubbish, the utilities already compensate for that using
capacitors. Furthermore, the CFLs's P/S technique is the same as
that of the P/Ss for computers and UPSs. If the users obeyed the
label warnings, they'd get the advertised life. However, do not
stock up on CFLs! bc predicts they'll be obsolete in a few years,
i.e. about the time the currently in use CFLs die.
bc happy w/ his recessed soffit LED lamps. And unpresciently stocked
up!! Two big boxes of CFLs
p.s. considering the incandescent technology is "post" mature (>100
years) and CFLs are nearly cutting edge comparatively, I think they
are doing VERY well. Their soon obsolescence by LED is a great
example of the acceleration of tech. innovation.
On 2009, Apr 08, , at 15:07, curtis osterhoudt wrote:
cut
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/08/2125250
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:35:03 -0400
From: Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <p06240823c602de7f90fc@[10.0.1.48]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
At 11:30 -0400 04/08/2009, Rick Tarara wrote:
Yes, we can use less energy--but I repeat that reducing by more than 25% is
tough. As a country of 300+ million people, stretching 3000 miles coast to
coast and 1000 miles border to border, with (still) the biggest economy in
the world and a 21st century technology, the U.S. does not do all that bad.
The problem is really not that the U.S. uses too much energy (OK, a little
too much), it is that the rest of the world uses too little to provide a
21st century living standard to their people. The comparison to be made is
between the developed world and the 'third world'--average out the
variations for population, area, population density, percentage of 'home
grown' economy versus imported resources and then do your comparisons.
Spare us, please, from the 5%--25% mantra. It really is not useful.
No one (with any sense, that is) is arguing that we must reduce our
energy use to that of Bangladesh, or something like that. In fact, I
want those developing nations to be able to use more energy to
improve the lives of their populations, but if they do it the way we
and most of Europe have been doing it for the past 100 years, it will
spell real disaster for the world. It is crucial that the development
in the third world be done more sensibly (*much* more sensibly) than
we did it, but unless we lead the way, they will not "do as we say,
not as we do," even though that would be a suicidal decision.
But despite the fact that we are no longer the world's leading CO2
emitter (China passed us in 2007), we are still by far the largest
per capita CO2 emitter, by a factor of about 4 compared to the rest
of the world. but this is exactly why we must reduce our CO2
emissions by more than most anyone else, and in the process, the
poorest nations will inevitably increase their CO2 emissions, because
they are now emitting far below the world average, while we are
emitting far above it. If every nation brought their per capita GHG
emissions to the current world average, most countries would be able
to increase theirs, while we would have to reduce ours by around 85%,
and that would just keep us at the current rate of emissions, which
is commonly accepted by the scientific community to be well above a
sustainable level. What is ultimately needed is for the entire world
to bring its CO2 emission to zero, but still increasing the per
capita energy use to something approximating what is used in the EU
today.
Rick is right that the extent of our country will probably result in
higher per capita energy use than most other nations (Russia, Brazil,
India, Canada, Australia and China all have similar geographic
spreads that will make it necessary to use more energy than average
to maintain an acceptable life-style). But it is not energy use, per
se, that is the issue. It is CO2 emissions, and we are pushing to
move to renewable energy sources ASAP so that we can maintain our
lifestyle while we cut our contribution to the atmospheric GHG load.
We do use too much energy. And reducing our energy consumption by 50%
is not impossible. California manages to do quite nicely using less
than 2/3 of the national per capita average (even less if you figure
the national average without including California). Most of that will
come from the building and housing sector, with less from the
electricity sector and transportation, but the savings are there, we
only need to develop the political and social will to do it. The
5%-25% comparisons merely illustrate how over the top our energy use
is. Ideally, with 5% of the population, we should us 5% of the
energy, and with 20% of the population, China should use 20% of the
energy. Presently they use considerably less. But as their per capita
use increases, ours should decrease. In the process, the total amount
of being used world-wide will increase, hopefully enough to give
everyone a decent life, and not have a small fraction of the world
with more than enough and the rest with not enough to live on.
That is a world I do not want my children and grandchildren to inherit.
Hugh
--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:hhaskell@mindspring,.com
So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and
water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them
get away with it!!
Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:46:01 -0400
From: Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Nuclear Reactors
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <p06240825c602e63a60ce@[10.0.1.48]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
At 12:41 -0400 04/08/2009, R. McDermott wrote:
I haven't read every post on this thread, but there are two potential energyOTEC is an intriguing technology, but unfortunately seems to be
sources that seem to always be overlooked. One is OTEC (Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion); energy produced by using the temperature differential in
the deep oceans, and the other is tidal (think underwater "windmills"). One
of the biggest problems with energy generation/usage is transmission and
storage, and these impact greatly on OTEC.
doomed to a niche role. There is one operating OEC plant that I am
familiar with, on a South Pacific island. but it produces only a
couple of hundred kW, and it seems that making a much larger one is
neither economically nor thermodynamically worthwhile. But it could
be something that would be useful for isolated islands with proper
water conditions. Not likely to be a major factor in our energy
portfolio though.
But a Google search on OTEC turns up quite a few hits. So somebody is
paying attention.
Hugh
--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:hhaskell@mindspring,.com
So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and
water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them
get away with it!!
Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:42:27 -0700
From: "Shapiro, Mark" <mshapiro@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<F7DA7E5896B79D4F8F7D01E5062D6988018F12E5985A@SFEXCH4.AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A lot too much IMHO. Our efficiency standards leave a lot to be desired.
Mark
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Hugh Haskell [hhaskell@mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:35 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use (was CFLs)
At 11:30 -0400 04/08/2009, Rick Tarara wrote:
Yes, we can use less energy--but I repeat that reducing by more than 25% is
tough. As a country of 300+ million people, stretching 3000 miles coast to
coast and 1000 miles border to border, with (still) the biggest economy in
the world and a 21st century technology, the U.S. does not do all that bad.
The problem is really not that the U.S. uses too much energy (OK, a little
too much), it is that the rest of the world uses too little to provide a
21st century living standard to their people. The comparison to be made is
between the developed world and the 'third world'--average out the
variations for population, area, population density, percentage of 'home
grown' economy versus imported resources and then do your comparisons.
Spare us, please, from the 5%--25% mantra. It really is not useful.
No one (with any sense, that is) is arguing that we must reduce our
energy use to that of Bangladesh, or something like that. In fact, I
want those developing nations to be able to use more energy to
improve the lives of their populations, but if they do it the way we
and most of Europe have been doing it for the past 100 years, it will
spell real disaster for the world. It is crucial that the development
in the third world be done more sensibly (*much* more sensibly) than
we did it, but unless we lead the way, they will not "do as we say,
not as we do," even though that would be a suicidal decision.
But despite the fact that we are no longer the world's leading CO2
emitter (China passed us in 2007), we are still by far the largest
per capita CO2 emitter, by a factor of about 4 compared to the rest
of the world. but this is exactly why we must reduce our CO2
emissions by more than most anyone else, and in the process, the
poorest nations will inevitably increase their CO2 emissions, because
they are now emitting far below the world average, while we are
emitting far above it. If every nation brought their per capita GHG
emissions to the current world average, most countries would be able
to increase theirs, while we would have to reduce ours by around 85%,
and that would just keep us at the current rate of emissions, which
is commonly accepted by the scientific community to be well above a
sustainable level. What is ultimately needed is for the entire world
to bring its CO2 emission to zero, but still increasing the per
capita energy use to something approximating what is used in the EU
today.
Rick is right that the extent of our country will probably result in
higher per capita energy use than most other nations (Russia, Brazil,
India, Canada, Australia and China all have similar geographic
spreads that will make it necessary to use more energy than average
to maintain an acceptable life-style). But it is not energy use, per
se, that is the issue. It is CO2 emissions, and we are pushing to
move to renewable energy sources ASAP so that we can maintain our
lifestyle while we cut our contribution to the atmospheric GHG load.
We do use too much energy. And reducing our energy consumption by 50%
is not impossible. California manages to do quite nicely using less
than 2/3 of the national per capita average (even less if you figure
the national average without including California). Most of that will
come from the building and housing sector, with less from the
electricity sector and transportation, but the savings are there, we
only need to develop the political and social will to do it. The
5%-25% comparisons merely illustrate how over the top our energy use
is. Ideally, with 5% of the population, we should us 5% of the
energy, and with 20% of the population, China should use 20% of the
energy. Presently they use considerably less. But as their per capita
use increases, ours should decrease. In the process, the total amount
of being used world-wide will increase, hopefully enough to give
everyone a decent life, and not have a small fraction of the world
with more than enough and the rest with not enough to live on.
That is a world I do not want my children and grandchildren to inherit.
Hugh
--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:hhaskell@mindspring,.com
So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and
water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them
get away with it!!
Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:50:58 -0700
From: David Appell <appell@nasw.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] global temperatures
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Message-ID: <49DD4672.1080006@nasw.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
marx@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
> There has been a flattening and perhaps a slight decline in
> global temperatures, depending on the dataset you look at. One
> could draw the conclusion that there is not a direct connection
> between increased CO2 and global temperatures or that there are more
> parameters that need to be considered. The modelers claim that the
> influence of the Sun is minimal. However, it is curious that the
> flattening and slight decrease are coming at a time when solar
> activity is at a century minimum.
These "flattenings" and "slight decreases" are nothing unprecedented at
all, in the last 35 years. See the second chart on:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2008/11/has-global-warming-stopped.html
If you're going to emphasize the temperature plateau of last few years,
you'd have had to do the same between 2002-2004, 1999-2002, and (esp)
1993-1998.
Yet warming resumed after all these plateaus.
CO2 is a GHG. Period. This is essentially a theorem. Natural and
statistical factors will cause its overall factor to fluctuate -- this
is a nonlinear system, after all -- but anthropogenic GHGs are bound to
win in the end, unless we put up some serious pollution.
David
--
David Appell, freelance science journalist
e: appell@nasw.org
w: http://www.nasw.org/users/appell
m: St. Helens, OR
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:55:40 -0700
From: David Appell <appell@nasw.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] global temperatures
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Message-ID: <49DD478C.7060409@nasw.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 04/04/2009 08:02 AM, Rick Tarara wrote in part:
>> We need to keep the questions clear here. The polar melting
>> (and there has been some controversy on that lately as well)
No, there really isn't much controversy. NASA & NSIDC had a press
conference on Monday. The ice extent in the Arctic is continuing to
decrease -- not monotically, of course -- but equally bad, the ice is
thinning, and getting younger. See
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/04/arctic-sea-ice.html
I hear that in a month or two NSIDC will release a graph of Arctic sea
ice volume vs. time, which is really what you want to know. All
indications are that it will show a sharp decrease over the last couple
of decades.
David
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:40:02 -0400
From: chuck britton <cvbritton@embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Nuclear Reactors
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <F6B42B4B-E79D-41B6-AB36-E0F5F0FCA6CC@embarqmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
I'm hoping that Rick's students have some figures to tack onto this
idea -
WATER HEATING - both commercial and domestic should use NO
electricity or fossil fuel.
Solar water heating panels are low-tech and non-polluting (Quite
unlike the manufacturing process for PV panels).
How could Jimmy Carter's $3000 tax rebate plan be made to work???
As it worked out there were bunches of jack-leg solar panel
installers who offered a 'custom designed' system for each home that
just happened to cost $3000. And each installation company went 'out-
of-business' before any warrenty or maintenance work had to be done.
Unregulated capitalism at it's best.
On Apr 7, 2009, at Apr 7(Tue) 1:44 , Rick Tarara wrote:
When my class does their energy project
(supplying U.S. energy 100 years from now without the use of oil or
gas) we
don't allow any 'deus ex machina' solutions.
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:17:34 -0700
From: David Appell <appell@nasw.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] coal
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Message-ID: <49DD5ABE.5030902@nasw.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Bob LaMontagne wrote:
> Alternate energy sources are "alternate" because they are
> not quite ready for prime time.
No, alternative energy sources are alternate because the true cost of
carbon-based fuels has not been truly accounted for.
If you asked the oil and coal industries to also pay for the damage
their products do to the environment and to human health -- and I can
see no reason why any industry and its consumers should *not* pay for
such collateral damage -- not to mention the cost of our military
shoring up their oil access in the middle east, you'd come up with a far
larger figure than gas at $2/gallon. $10/gal? Higher?
> We have an absurdly large supply of ridiculously
> cheap coal (sorry - I'm not swayed by arguments of "true" cost).
While you may not be swayed about arguments of coal's true cost, you pay
for it anyway, via your health and the health of society. Denying them
is absurd. Several posts here have made that clear.
David
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:50:39 +0900
From: Leon de Oliveira <leondeolive@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Energy use
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <49DDC4EF.3070501@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
We ARE doing this in developing countries. There are companies
developing fuel gas from biomass and selling small solar panels to homes
to provide energy to light the home at night. The biomass fuels use
local input and create much less damaging pollution improving the health
of women in the homes that use the gas. These are ways to improve
standards of living in poor and developing nations without large power
plants and infrastructure. They are financed by micro loans as well.
These areas are greatly improved but this is by no means a way to bring
them to our energy consumption level. But then again would we want to?
Leon
Folkerts, Timothy J wrote:
What we can do is find ways for people around the world to generateCan we indeed do this??? I certainly hope so, but it will take some
enough energy to improve their standard of living ...
MAJOR changes.
Planetary-scale energy needs will only be met by "harvesting" energy
from planetary-scale sources:
* energy from the earth (geothermal)
* energy from the sun (including wind and biofuels)
* energy from the moon (tides).
* energy from atoms (fusion - not fission because we don't seem to have
enough U)
Until we start thinking on these scales, we are thinking too small!
Furthermore, these are mostly diffuse sources, so storage &
transportation on a global scale become an issue too. If we do not
figure out how to (or develop the will to) harvest these sources on
these scales, civilization will not continue as it is.
Tim Folkerts
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:05:48 -0400
From: Josh Gates <jgates@tatnall.org>
Subject: [Phys-l] Mini laptops
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <49DDE49C.3090608@tatnall.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Does anyone have experience with "mini" laptops/netbooks/One Laptop Per
Child-type laptops and Logger Pro? I see from the Vernier website that
they offer a free Logger Lite software for them, but it doesn't support
LabPros. Do these boxes have enough resources to run Logger Pro?
...Office (or OpenOffice)? ...browsers? ... Java applets? ...video
playback (WMP, RealPlayer, Quicktime, etc.)?
jg
--
Joshua Gates
Physics Faculty
Tatnall School ? Wilmington DE
Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth
------------------------------
Message: 22
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:24:08 EDT
From: Spinozalens@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Nuclear Reactors (was: Global Temperatures)
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Message-ID: <c93.437cd250.370f50f8@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
In a message dated 4/7/2009 1:44:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hhaskell@mindspring.com writes:
It is also important to realize that the oft-heard statement that "no
one died at TMI" is simply myth. No one was killed outright by what
happened, but the radiation released (both intentional and
unintentional) was larger than was ever made public (see "A
Reevaluation of Cancer Incidence Near the Three Mile Island Nuclear
Plant: The Collision of Evidence and Assumptions," by Steve Wing,
David Richardson, Donna Armstrong and Douglas Crawford-Brown,
published in "Environmental Health Perspectives," January 1997. All
four are with the School of Public Health at the University of NC,
Chapel Hill), and as a result there have been and will continue to be
deaths from radiation induced cancer among those living in the area
at the time. The problem is, of course, that we don't know who those
people are, because cancers don't leave a fingerprint behind
indicating what caused them, but we do know that cancer incidence nd
death rates among the population in the vicinity of TMI in 1979 are
and will continue to be higher than they would be had TMI not
occurred.
Have similar studies been done for populations around coal plants which emit
lots of cancer causing radiation due to the presence of radioactive isotopes
in coal not to mention the cancer causing chemicals? The difference between
Nuclear energy and coal is that there might be a release from a nuclear plant
with associated health risks but for coal its an ironclad guarantee. Also
its coal that threatens our future on this planet, not Nuclear power, since
Coal is a Carbon rich fuel.
It's a no brainer that the best options , if they can be made to work
economically, are solar and wind, but if the alternatives are coal or nuclear, I
would suggest Coal is the one to crusade against.
I also rather doubt the claim of the reports you mention. Given that about
40 percent or so (I think this is the right number but its ballpark in any
case) die from cancer its easy to generate data which make claims like this. I
suspect using the same logic a study around coal plants could produce the same
claim.
The accident in the former Soviet Union is an altogether different case,
here the health effects are not in question, that accident released a very large
amount of fission products and transuranic isotopes to the environment. This
did not happen at TMI.
Bob Zannelli
**************New Deals on Dell Netbooks ? Now starting at $299 (A
HREF=http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220635155x1201407495/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fa
d.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213771973%3B35379628%3Bw)
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 51, Issue 17
**************************************