HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Energy Strategy and Global Warming
Keywords: energy efficiency CO2 abatement cost effective
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:04:06 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1993Jan20.191304.18047@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
# James Hammerton says:
# Yet, in going from a fuel to electricity,
# there is always a considerable amount of waste heat produced. This can
# be used profitably to heat buildings. This is known as cogeneration(or 
# combined heat and power;'CHP'). CHP stations that provide electricity for
# a grid, and heat for houses in the local area, can achieve efficiencies
# of 70% or more(what I mean is that 'useful energy' in the form of useful
# heat or electricity, is 70% of the energy avialable in the original
# fuel)[10].
# 
# 
# With most of the huge power stations built miles and miles from cities,
# what are the costs and transmission losses of sending the heat this far?

Probably very high, but that isn't what I propose.

# James, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. For "safety" reasons, all
# new plants have to be built away from unban areas. Yet, you claim they'll
be
# able to double their efficiency by shipping the heat out to buildings.

Sweden seems to think CHP plants are safe enough at least. Also the plants
will tend to be smaller scale(and due to public opinion if nothing else) non
nuclear. I would advocate biomass or gas based CHP(preferably the latter)
where
pollution would be negligable. Also it is important to inform the people who
would experience these in their neighbourhoods of just what the risks are and
how
it will benefit them, and let them have the final say.
 
# Sorry--you'll have to do a better job than this.

I intend to.I'll do a further post whebn I get more info together in one
article!
(And when I have more time,I'm wasting vital minutes in writing up a report
for
a practical at the moment!)
 
# Tino
# -- 
#      "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
#
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#              Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
#
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James

-- 
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: tdean@makedustuswest.com (Tony Dean)
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Organization: U S WEST Communications -- Information Technologies
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:46:09 GMT

In article <30539@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:
> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> 
> 
> >Here is the crux of the problem.  You people in government think you know
> >more than us mere citizens and therefore have some kind of right to deny
> >us choice.  Bastards.  The thing that makes me so mad is I cannot come
> >up with a way short of an armed revolution to root you people out.
> >Maybe it must come to that.  Frankly, fuck you and your government
> >energy policies.  Richard, maybe if you'd drop the .gov off your
> >address and substitute a .com, you'd understand.
> 
> >John
> 
> That's what get's me about Libertarians in the USA. They think the world
> owes them a living, and that anybody who gets in their way ought to be
> shot.

I don't quite believe this is accurate. Most Libertarians merely want 
to be left alone to make their own living. They are just tired of 
paying for "Welfare for the Middle Class" that many gov't and regulated
agencies effectively have become.

> 
> Two things for you to think about
> 
> 1) Americans pay less tax per head than any of the other G7 Nations

I am no longer completely convinced of this. With 15.75 % Socialist
insecurity, 23% Fed, another dose of state, local, hidden, (alcohol,
gas, postal funds being re-routed, 7% sales in some places we can now
give the G7 countries a good run for the money :-) If we pay less than
any one of them, its still too close to some of them for my financial comfort.

> 
> 2) Your infrastructure is knackered

Not necessarily. Gov't is not the only perveyor of infrastructure. When
we get good work at a reasonable return on investment thats good. When
we get slipshod, corrupt, poorly managed, and unnecessary projects
it is bad. There is far too much "BAD" in many of our buracracies. Some
ppl are simply tired of it.

...........................................................................
Tony Dean - Consultant with Cap Gemini America 
e-mail: tdean@eatdust.uswest.com
Disclaimer: At this time, should anyone reliably determine that any
   verbage in this document can be construed as an opinion, discard or
   disregard the contents, intent, media, and form of said document.
...........................................................................
From: trh2m@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Thomas Richard Hubbard)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ? Why invert?
Date: 24 Jan 93 17:25:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <wy=sapc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>Next is the issue of keeping that many batteries equalized.  One of
>the systems I was responsible for at the Sequoyah nuclear plant was
>the 250 volt, 200,000 amp-hour emergency instrument battery system.
>Learned a lot about maintaining large battery strings.  The issue is
>the cells develop sulfation and/or self-discharge at different 
>rates.  In a long string like that, the odds will result in one or several
>cells differing markedly from the rest.  One technique that helps mitigate
>the effect is to periodically apply an equalizing charge.  This is a
>fairly heavy overcharge, using the theory that the weak cells will be
>charged while the strong cells are relatively harmlessly overcharged.
>When you have a few thousand megawatts available, hard overcharging 
>isn't hard :-).  A solar charger would have to be oversized to do that.

Another option is to maintain the batteries on a "trickle discharge."
This can be done by connecting a large resistor across the series while
the batteries are at stand-by. The strong cells then discharge a little
more than the weak ones, and they tend to equalize.  The disadvantage of
this is that you don't have 100% of the batteries capacity available
when you need it.  The advantage is that you don't need a few thousand
MW available.

Tom Hubbard
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Gas Tax (was: Re: NEWS: True Costs ...)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:40:27 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
 
>>> >If we tax gas, gas use will go down, leading to a glut and lower prices,
>>> >so gas price at the pump will not go up by the full amount of the tax.
>>> >(supply and demand is fun, ain't it?)
>
>Yes it it.  Are you familiar with pricing and demand/supply functions
>in conditions of Monopoly, Oligopoly, and the actions of Cartels?
>Your naive supply/demand presumption is completely worthless.
 
Yes, perhaps advocates of such a tax should look to real examples,
rather than theoretical demand = supply economics. Want a real example,
then perhaps these people should look at countries with such a tax and
see how it really works.
 
>Yes, very basic.  So basic in fact that it no longer captures the
>realities of the the world.  The price of gasoline at the pump has
>ranged from $.70 to $1.40 /gallon over the last year or two.  I have
>seen no dramatic change in consumption of gasoline during that time.
 
Well you can expect to pay around AUS$3.24 per gallon of petrol here.
If we took off taxes, we would expect to pay aorund AUS$1.12 - not bad
hey?
 
Consider then, that it has done NOTHING to stem the usage of the motor
vehicle, and that less and less of the money collected actually goes
towards fixing roads etc, and you see what a great benefit such a tax
is for us. We can hardly contain ourselves, we are so happy!
 
>>Exactly why I propose an income tax reduction, indexed so that income ranges
>>paying the most in gas tax have the largest reduction.
>
>Oh God, not another complication of the income tax.  Have you never done
>your own income tax?  Have you no idea what feeding a hungry bear does?
 
Have to agree Michael, after all how would these people put such a
system into place? Would everybody have to keep log books? I hear your
tax dept (IRS?) is pretty mean over there, so can you expect, while
driving home, to at any moment be surrounded by a dozen tax men
demanding to see your log book?
 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Road Taxes and tolls
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:18:53 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Except that it does not work that way.  I just called Ga-DOT to ask
>(404 656 5267 if anyone is interested)  The way it will work is that 
>each "frequent user" estimates his monthly usage and purchases a
>toll card for that amount.  This card is fastened to the windshield so that 
>a laser reader in the toll lane can read the barcode.  The toll is
>deducted from the driver's account.  At the end of the month he is
>billed for what he used.  Note that at no time is credit extended.
>The state's not THAT dumb :-)

Which begs the question, what do they do if you underestimate your usage
or don't pay the monthly bill? How do they keep you off the road?


>  I just called
>Cobb County Police (404 499 4101, Lt. Sisson) and asked what it
>costs to have a Cobb County officer on the road for a year.  
>Here are the numbers:
>
>*	The cop		$37,000	 (includes salary, benefits, training, uniform, 
>				         equipment.)

Are you sure that's everything and not just salary? I can't imagine a
police force that would accept an average salary or benefits level low
enough to bring a total in that low.

>*   The Car     80,000-95,000 miles per year.  @ 0.20 a mile that is

$0.20/mile is pretty cheap to operate a car these days. The US govt
estimates the cost as about $0.33/mile. And the mileage figures you
show are 8-9 times the mileage used to to compute it.

>  If one pays the ticket, points are not
>reported and it only takes one trip to court.  If one challenges it,
>the case is automatically continued at least twice as a matter of court
>policy and if you lose, you get points.  Only on the third appearance does 
>the cop have to appear and by then the victim has usually capitulated.  

Ah, yes, the "hassle 'em until they give up" strategy. After all, the police
never make mistakes, do they?


--
William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com

"We trained hard,  but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;  and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization."	-Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC(?)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press rele
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:11:31 GMT

In article <5698.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren)  writes:

>  I think the REAL problem (and maybe this is only MY problem) is that the 
>noxious deadly material is brought together and concentrated from all over 
>the world, and then it produces useful energy which is disbursed, and then 
>there is a horrendous residue of deadly stuff left over. Seems to me that 
>this is the wrong way 'round. Seems to me we're just serving the old god 
>of the 19th century: spend anything on centralized capital costs to save 
>money on marginal costs. The ugly side-effect is the Love Canal or 
>Hanford or Chernobyl phenomena, which brings home the point of the 
>deadliness of this stuff, AND how easily safety precautions are ignored by 
>executives and bureaucrats under pressure.
>   Thus, it seems to me that distributed production of energy makes more 
>sense. Which is one of the reasons I like Solar power and fuel alcohol.

You are very wise to use the word "Seems" several times in this statement. 
I would have to agree with you that, on the face of it, distributed "soft"
energy sources to "seem" to be more the "right" way to do things, rather 
than centralized "hard" megaprojects.

I would also have to point, however, that distributing energy sources to 
every energy user "seems" to me to be serving the old god of the 18th 
century and before:  each user in charge of his/her own fuel supply.

The risk estimates by Inhaber and Holdren that I've brought up before have 
assumed centralized energy generation, and solar sources are shown to 
have higher risk.  What do you think happens when you put those wind towers
or solar collectors in the backyards or on the rooftops of every citizen?
A lot of people die trying to clear snow from their roofs each year, and 
this kind of work will be required on a regular basis, year round, if the 
home's electricity or heat comes from an array up there.    

I like my electricity flowing reliably and without any thought on my part 
from a clean source where experts are running things 24 hours a day.  When
I see someone proudly heating their home by chopping the forests down and
burning them in woodstoves and furnaces, I am not impressed.

Well, that's how it seems to me anyway.

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was
Date: 24 Jan 93 17:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

DJ>And why shouldn't bicyclists bellow?  Do you know of any city where there
DJ>is a comprehensive bicycle transportation system?  I've never seen one.
DJ>Only random networks of unconnected bike lanes that may or may not go
DJ>anywhere useful.  It can be downright dangerous to get anywhere on a bike.
DJ>Snow is not usually cleared from these lanes in the winter, and in the summe
DJ>they are littered with gravel, branches, glass, and dead animals.

Many cities in California have comprehensive bicycle transportation
systems. Palo Alto and Davis, both university towns (to name two), have
"bicycle boulevards" which are regular residential streets that
parallel the main arteries. These streets have few stop signs and enough
traffic barriers for autos to discourage use by cars. These boulevards
are heavily used by bicyclists and it is easy to get to any place in
these cities safely all year round.

For the last 25 years I have been clever enough and lucky enough to find
work as an electronics engineer within walking or easy bicycling
distance from my home. I once locked my car up for two years and didn't
even get in it to demonstrate to myself and others that an automobile is
not necessary for a full life in this grossily, inefficient society.

Howard Smith

American Hydrogen Association BBS (415)494-3116
1200-14,400 baud (V.32bis V.42bis)  8N1  24 hrs
Hydrogen Energy -  Prosperity without Pollution
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . We all live in a yellow subroutine.
                                                               
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:36:10 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 
>So Americans are getting slightly less screwed that the poor SOBs in
>the other G7 nations. This begs the old question asked by mothers
>everywhere, "If all your friends jump off a cliff, do you have to
>jump too?"
 
True enough. Unless there is some model system out there that proves
your system is "crap" then why change.
 
>>2) Your infrastructure is knackered
>
>Only in the liberal welfare state Northeast. Down here in Georgia
>we have both the lowest taxes *and* the best roads. That's because
>we don't let the Legislature get their sticky fingers on the gas
>tax money. It's mandated by law to go *directly* to the State DOT
>which in our state is essentially a totally autonomous body that
>doesn't answer to the Legislature. They are a professional group
>of highway engineers, not politicians.
 
I wish our legislated "petrol taxes & excises" were all directed to
the maintenance of roads. What we have instead is a bunch of
politicians who are allowed to redirect the vast majority of the
money towards consolidated revenue - money that never finds its way to
the roads or highways.
 
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7265 rec.bicycles.tech:3433
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:48:31 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <1jr751INN16a@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.000753.14523@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>Pondering this ...  Why not just use a 120 VDC battery pack and use
>>120 VDC for a bunch of stuff?  Lightbulbs don't care if they are
>>AC or DC,
>
>Well, actually, the fluorescents with transformer ballasts *DOL* care.  They
>need the AC for the transformer to work right.  Now, incandescent lamps will
>handle DC quite well, and fluorescents with electronic ballasts want DC, I
>think (but not necessarily 120-volt DC).
>

Just a minor quibble.  This is a question that has been annoying me just a tad
for a while, so i'm expanding the crosspost to include rec.bicycles.tech to
cast a broader net for an answer.



Many bicyclists use Halogen light bulbs in their headlights.  Some run them off
generators that produce AC at several hundred Hz, and others use batteries.

I have seen two common ratings for 6V halogen bulbs that fit my particular
[Union] lamp: 2.4 W and 4 W.

The 2.4 W lamps that one buys in a bike shop have little sine waves scratched
into their bases, and in my experience they function poorly on my battery.
2.4W is a good fit for bike generators' capacity, and generators power most of
these smaller bulbs.  Usually, when you buy a generator it comes with one of
these bulbs and the instructions suggest replacing them with the same bulb when
it burns out.  You can't use a higher-wattage bulb.  On my 6V battery, 2.4W
bulbs with tiny sine waves scratched into their bases burn out after only a few
hours.

The 4 W lamps have a little <<square>> wave scratched into <<their>> bases, and
i'm on my second one in five years.  The first one lasted about 400 hours, and
the second one is still working after 2 years which is about 300 hours.  


Is there some difference between the designs of these bulbs that make one work
better on AC and the other on DC?  Or is my observation a fluke?


-dk
From: john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: Oil Use Could b
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:11:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: john.holmgren@spacebbs.com (John Holmgren) 

PD>What these no-more-oil-use fantasies ignore is the response of the oil
PD>market.  The OPEC countries would respond as follows.  First, they
PD>would view this as a threat to the long term market for oil.  So they
PD>would have no incentive to preserve their oil stockpiles.  OPEC
PD>production (mainly, mideast production) would increase, as the
PD>countries try to maintain their accustomed incomes.  Oil prices would
PD>fall.
  Yes, exactly so. Which is why it's foolhardy to fuss with the market. 
The best alternative is to remove oil SUBSIDIES, which were contrived for 
domestic producers, and which just enrich OPEC guys. Let alternative fuels 
develop on a level playing field, and at the same time exact a cost for 
pollution.



---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#0 . Unregistered Evaluation Copy
                                                                                                    
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: butteris@dingus.ssc.gov
Subject: Sources for Fuel Cells (or design) & notes
Keywords: Fuel Cell, battery
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:12:32 GMT

Hello, 

I was wondering if anyone knows of vendors of fuel cells (doubtful I know)  
or the plans for general (reversible) hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells. Any  
information would be appreciated. I have seen the plans (old) for the  
20kWatt fuel cell used (or proposed?) for the shuttle program but would  
like some current technology. The fuel cells require a closely spaced  
cathode/anode seperated by a gas permeable membrane. And I seem to  
remember that the actual area was about the size of a half-dollar. This  
fuel cell was supposed to be very expensive (>$50k). 

It seems that a technology like a fuel cell operating as a non-carnot  
limited energy source would go a long way for the powering of electric  
vehicles and for "off-line" storage of energy at moderate densities (I do  
not know the actual numbers though :+( ). I also remember that the fuel  
cell was only able to supply energy at a constant rate requiring something  
intermediate, such as high energy capacitors (I am following the thread)  
or rechargeable batteries. 

What about the electrolysis of the hydrogen/oxygen in the first place? Who  
knows the best techniques of gathering the actual gases? Can a fuel cell  
operate in reverse? Does this qualify as a "zero emission" device? :+)

Is there a site that sources designs for energy storage/conversion  
devices?

Jamey B @ SSC
From: robk@gumby.Altos.COM (Rob Kleinschmidt)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:54:37 GMT
Reply-To: robk@altos.COM (Rob Kleinschmidt)
Organization: Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA

In article <1993Jan23.000753.14523@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>Pondering this ...  Why not just use a 120 VDC battery pack and use
>120 VDC for a bunch of stuff?  Lightbulbs don't care if they are
>AC or DC,

>So why not?  Why not have a 120 VDC battery bank directly running 
>the incadecent lights, and any easy to change motors like heaters,
>and any suitable electronic ballast CF bulbs?  Then you only need
>an inverter for the electronic stuff, some general purpose outlets
>in the kitchen and other parts of the house, and maybe the fridge.

A neighbor of ours was actually running a setup like this. Not sure
if the lines were part time D.C. part time A.C. or full time D.C. .
He had also built several small inverters for various individual
appliances.

Among other things, I understand that standard 120v switches may
not be appropriate because of D.C. arcing, and I think that it
would perhaps be a good idea to use non-standard plugs and outlets
to prevent connection of inappropriate stuff to a DC outlet.

With kids to worry about, it seemed prudent to make our house
straight A.C. and plunk down the bucks for the inverter.


R. Kleinschmidt
Newsgroups: sci.energy