Kedves KORNYESZ-tarsak!

Nehany tovabbi adalek.
Dunkl Istvan irja, hogy a szeleromuben termelt vill.en. koltsege 
"csak" ketszerese a hagyomanyosnak. (Szerintem az is eppen eleg!) 
Hozzateszem: az Eszaki tenger partjan. Hasonlitsd ossze a 
szelsebesseg-gyakorisag diagrammokat mondjuk a hazaival. Ott 6-7 
m/s, nalunk 3-3.5 m/s az atlagos szelsebesseg. A szelkerekek 
tobbsege 3-5 m/s-nal mozdul meg eloszor es ugy 10 m/s korul adja a 
nevleges teljesitmenyet. Ott 25-30 % teljesitmeny-kihasznalasi 
tenyezot lehet elerni, itt 5-10%-ot. A szelkerekeknek is van jarulekos 
koltsege. Mivel a szel luktet - es errol nem lehet leszoktatni - a 
szelkerekek olyan felharmonikusokat visznek a halozatra, amelyek 
kompenzalasanak (kiszuresenek) koltsege mar a halozat 
uzemeltetojet terheli. A Nagy Gonosz Eromuvesek azert talaltak ki a 
Groviant, mert az legalabb MW nagysagrendu. Ebbol csak 1-2000 
db-ot kell epiteni (a rendelkezesre allasi tenyezot is figyelembe 
veve), hogy kivaltsanak pl. 1 db, a nemeteknel legszokasosabb 700 
MW-os szentuzelesu blokkot. (Nem eromuvet, annak egy blokkjat!) A 
"kis aranyos"-bol - altalaban 10-200 kW nevleges - tobb tizezret. 
Szep latvany lenne, az elfoglalt terulet nagysagarol nem is beszelve. 
Es ez az igen kedvezo szelviszonyu helyen igaz. A nagysagrol: 
szeleskoru tapasztalat, hogy - egy bizonyos nagysag korlatig - egy 
ketszer akkora berendezes nem kerul kerul ketszer annyiba, csak kb. 
1.6-1.7-szeresbe. Azaz a faljagos koltsege 15-20%-kal kisebb. Ha a 
MW mar abba az "extrem nagy" kategoriaba tartozik, ahol ez a 
torvenyszeruseg mar nem ervenyesul, akkor az nem egy 
versenykepes technologia. Osszehasonlitasul: Nemeto. eromuvi 
kapacitasa becslesem szerint tobb mint 100 000 MW lehet.

Zorro kerdezi: mi volt a "no comment" a vizeromunel? Csak kerettem 
magam egy kicsit, mert nem szivesen irom le a velemenyem. Ma 
MO.-n a vizeromu nem energetikai, nem gazdasagi es nem 
kornyezetvedelmi kerdes, hanam politikai. A Duna Kor a 
rendszervaltas eloestejen jo erzekkel eszrevette a hatalom 
elbizonytalanodasat es velemenyenek megfeleloen lepett. Az alakulo 
ellenzek biztosabbnak latta az elso rugasokat masok hata mogul 
leadni es eloterbe tolta Vargha Janosekat. Nem energetikai, nem 
gazdasagi es nem kornyezetvedelmi alapon. Hatalomra jutva nem 
lett volna ildomos azonnal hatat forditani nekik, a lendulet vitta 
tovabb a dolgokat, egeszen Hagaig., a ket orszag viszonyanak 
megromlasaig. KORNYESZ kerdes ez?

Mas: informacioim szerint a Greenpeace felkerte a paksi "Szarkofag 
 .." egyesuletet az uzemanyag szallitas akadalyozasara. Az anyagi 
segitseget is felajanlotta, hogy fizetett "onkentes" tiltakozokat 
fogadjanak, mint ok Nemetorszagban. Hozzatettek: MO.-n ez meg 
olcsobb is lenne. Az atomeromu-partisaggal aligha vadolhato 
egyesulet becsuletere legyen mondva, visszautasitottak e 
lelekgyonyorkodteto ajanlatot. (Forras: az egyesulet elnoke a paksi 
helyi TV-ben)

Udv. mindenkinek           Gacs Ivan

Communications Officer
 
The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe is
looking for a Communications Officer.  Duties include writing and
editing a professional, 24-page newsletter; producing a variety of
marketing communications materials; and managing other publishing and
media-related projects.  Qualifications include demonstrated writing
skills in English; excellent project management skills; computer
literacy; and a university degree.  Background in journalism is a
plus.  
Send cover letter and CV to: 
Mozes Kiss, Regional Environmental Center 
Miklos ter 1
1035 Budapest
Hungary
Fax: (36-1) 250-3403   
E-mail: 

LYING TO THE POLLSTERS

I want to assure you that my Mom brought me up right.  Lying doesn't come
easily to me.  I had to endure many New Hampshire presidential primaries before
I thought of lying to the pollsters.

In the week or two before the primary they call almost every night.  You can
tell immediately that it's a poll by the bored voice.  "Hello, Ms. Meadows?,"
they drone.  "Would you say you are very likely, fairly likely, or not at all
likely to vote in the coming Republican primary?"

When I was new to this game I felt honored, as most of us do when our opinion
is solicited.  "Hey, they're calling ME!  They want to know what I think!  When
they report this tomorrow on TV, they'll be reporting on ME!"

Let me tell you, that thrill wears off real fast.  For one thing, they always
call when we're scrambling around trying to get supper on the table.  For
another, we've been hardened by the steady hammering of advertising calls.  For
those we have a well-practiced response:  "We don't take telephone
solicitations at this house."  SLAM!  It's all I can do to suppress that
reaction when the pollsters call.

"Would you say you are a strong Republican, a moderate Republican, or an
Independent?"  Sometimes I'm a strong Republican and I'm going to vote for
Forbes.  Sometimes I'm a moderate going for Dole.  Sometimes, just to blow
their minds, I tell them I'm a Democrat intending to vote for Pat Buchanan.

I suppose I would blow their minds most if I told the truth, which is I'm none
of the above, they haven't got a political party that's anything close to what
I am, and there isn't a person running, from bigoted Buchanan through spineless
Clinton, whom I'd want as my next-door neighbor, much less the leader of my
country.  On the day of the primary my vote will go wherever I decide it can do
the most to mess up the schemes of the manipulators who are spending a million
dollars a week (Steve Forbes alone) to lie to me.  How come it took me so long
to think of lying back to them?

You may have detected a note of bitterness there?  A slight curmudgeonliness? 
Actually, it's nothing more than surface bluster covering over a deep sorrow,
the sorrow I think most of us feel about our political system, so noble in
theory, so shabby in practice.

I'm not going to repeat here -- I'd get too worked up -- the full list of
outrages to which our leaders of both parties have subjected us, from the five
trillion dollar debt to the sweet deals for fatcats, from the S&L scam to the
logging-without-laws rider.  The misleading, mudslinging ads.  The cynicism
with which they repeat ridiculous claims they don't begin to believe
themselves.  The utter lack of trustworthiness; the massive abuse of public
resources.

There I go, getting worked up.  Sorry

I see no option but radical non-cooperation.  Lying to the pollsters is the
easiest way I can see to twit the system.  Only takes a minute.  They come
asking for it.

I'd appreciate polls if they were honest instruments of democratic government,
assessing peoples' informed opinions.  I'd love to be asked not just whom I
favor, but why.  I'd relish a set of questions that took more than 30 seconds,
that presented me with a range of real options, that asked not only what I
think but enough factual questions to ascertain whether I know what I'm talking
about.

But these polls have only two purposes, neither of them worthy.  Either the
politicians are fine-tuning their deceptive tactics, or the media are seeking
predictions, as if we were betting on horses.  In Iowa this week, on the basis
of entrance polls, the TV stations announced the caucus results before the
caucuses even began.  The only reason to do that is to beat some other station
to the story.  The result is to undermine democracy.  Insofar as people make up
their minds based on what other people are thinking (and people do), polls
influence results.

So why should we go along them?  Why encourage the making of sound bites and
the reporting of serious choices as if they were sports events?  We could
refuse to answer at all, but statisticians can correct for that.  What throws
them off is lies.  It would take just a small percent of us fabricating
responses, especially in tight races, to render the democracy-mocking polls
useless.

See, my mother not only made it hard for me to lie, she also gave me a belief
in public trust, in honor, in a government responsive to the people.  She
taught me to treasure the democratic process and to use my role in it with
care.  She also passed on to me just enough spunk to make it impossible for me
to cooperate with people who treat me with contempt.  I don't like the game of
"you lie to me, I'll lie to you."  What I really want to play is "let's respect
each other, let's tell each other the truth."  

I'm ready to do that, any time our purported leaders lead the way.

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)

Udv!

Nem akarok belekotnyeleskedni a dolgokba, meg kevesbe ugy tenni, mintha
sokat ertenek a dolgokhoz, de egy dolog szoget utott a fejembe.
Ha nem jo otlet, akkor elore is elnezest kerek, es szivesen veszem
az akadekoskodok leveleit/velemenyeit is.

Az otlet: mi van a melytengeri arkokkal? Amit oda belerakunk, az elmeletileg
szepen lemegy a kopeny ala.
 Az altalam eddig atgondolt + es - dolgok:
+ Mivel a tudosok szerint a fold belso magjat forron tarto energia jelenleg is
a nuklearis bomlasbol szarmazik, nem kiszem, hogy par ezer hordo hulladek
barmi gondot okozna.
+ Eleg hosszutavu megoldas, mindenesetre hosszutavubb, mint az eddigiek.
+ Nincs kezelesi koltseg. Meg ha fel is allitunk egy megfigyelorendszert, akkor
 is kissebb koltseggel kell szamolnunk, mint manapsag.
- A hulladek teljesen kikerul a felugyeletunk alol.
- A melytengeri arkok mogott rendszeresek a vulkani ovezetek, akol a melybe
nyomulo anyag a felszimre tor (legalabbis egy resze). Mekkora az athaladasi
ido? Veszelyes lehet-e meg akkor a hulladek?
Pl. ha meg egyaltalan sugaroz, akkor targytalan az egesz, kiszen ki orulne
annak, ha egyszer egy 'bedusitott' vulkan fello par kobkilometer sugarzo
anyagot a sztratoszferaba?

Ugy nagyjabol ennyi jutott most eszembe. Varom a hozzaszolasokat.

Bye: Balogh Mihaly