HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Ethanol and its energy budget (was Re: stuff...
Summary: I dunno and yes, respectively.
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:51:52 GMT
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI

In <1992Aug12.181134.15379@spdc.ti.com> burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris) writes:
>   If ethanol production is part of an integrated system of food/feed/fuel/etc.
>production, does it become more feasible/less expensive?

I have no idea.  I am not an ag specialist.

>Also, is ethanol
>cleaner burning than gasoline/methanol/whatever? Inquiring minds, you know.

Cleaner than gasoline, less formaldehyde than methanol, so I
guess you could say it is marginally cleaner than MeOH too.
-- 
Russ Cage   wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
From: zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Zika)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Why isn't Europe using alternative fuels? (was Re: Running out of oil)
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:48:26 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug18.205315.12087@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.203829.11907@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug18.023813.28004@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:
>
>This exchange caused me to ponder:  Doesn't Europe already have $4/gallon
>and $6/gallon gasoline (about $1/litre and $1.5/litre) ?  If so, isn't
>it fair to estimate that this reflects higher internalization of 
>externalities?  And if that is so:
>
>Where are the wholesale conversions to alternative fuels?

I think that the simple answer to this question is that the "alternative"
is public transport -- rail/bus/metro...
>
>So where are the methanol VWs and methanol 'gas' stations on the Autobahn?
>
>-- 
>
>E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM


-- 
                                     |
Michael Zika (zika@ecn.purdue.edu)   |    Hey don't ask me "why?",
Purdue University                    |    I'm still working on "how?" ! 
School of Nuclear Engineering        |
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->NEVER<-
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:28:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.165457.5065@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>	This is a very good point.  As we deplete our oil reserves,  the
>remaining oil will be harder to recover and the price will go up. 
>...sooner or later the price of motor fuel (or any other petroleum 
> product) will rise above the price of alternatives (i.e. methanol from 
>coal or biomass, electric cars powered by wind/solar/coal/nuclear, whatever.) 

Correct as far as it goes, but you're looking at the cup half-empty.  Another
factor is that the cost of extracting oil, and the cost of other forms
of energy, goes down as extraction methods improve.  The cost history of
oil -- it is near its all-time low price -- demonstrates that the technology 
is improving faster than the  oilfield quality is dropping.  Some of that 
other technology has or will drop in price even faster, to the point
where it replaces oil in whole or in part.  I suspect we will still be
using oil for petrochemicals well into the 22nd century, replacing it
with natural gas and various forms of nuclear power for most of our
other energy needs.  We will never completely run out of oil.

Instead of squabbling about which forms of energy will replace oil, I 
suggest we concentrate instead on enabling technologies for energy 
production, storage and conservation that are generic across a wide 
spectrum of methods: superconductors, high-strength materials, MHD 
generators, frictionless bearings, flywheels, etc.  For example, 
how can we improve on the bulky AA batteries we use for portable 
electronics?  Surely it possible to pack more energvy into less 
volume with very-long-life rechargeables, mini-flywheels, etc.  These
avenues of attack could prove much more fruitful than the well-trod
ground of grand solutions for the "energy crisis."


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEED info for Ni-Zn battery
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:33:39 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug17.113053.10135@waikato.ac.nz> phys2108@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>Hi,
>	I need some data on Ni-Zn batteries, more specifically, the Wh/Kg,
>No of cycles, dentrite problems, are there any commercially made, and if so
>where? My info is hopelessly out of date. Ii is not easy for me to get 
>current data for the above, any info would be appreciated. Thanks in advance
>Geoff.

The Bosch Automotive Handbook (1986) quotes them at 60 Wh/kg, but says 
they're experimental.

Gary.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: stuff...
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:34:02 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug11.201651.14230@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>: BTW *my* 4x4 gets about 10 liters/100 km, but it's old. New
>: ones do better, up to about 6 liters/100 km. A 50% fuel consumption increase
>:over your shoebox for an extra 1000 kg of carrying capacity is not a bad trade
>: off.
>
>Just curious, which 4x4 gets this 39mpg?  Or, were you using imperial gallons
>(which is 31mpg, still high)?
>
>I have a 4-cylinder 4Runner, and the best it gets is about 25mpg, which is
>more than any other 4x4 I know of around here.

Well, my old 4 liter Jeep gets 24 MPG and a co-worker's 4Runner gets over
30, but I was thinking of the Nissan *diesel* which gets around 38. As
they say in the fine print, "Your mileage may vary." I think it's noteworthy
that the *worst* mileage I've ever gotten from a tank of fuel in the Jeep
was 20 MPG, and that was in *winter*. I think that the drafting style of
driving we do down here probably has something to do with it.

Gary
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:25:57 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL


 (re Bo Curry's dissection of John DeArmond's DRAM parable)

 I took it as an illustration of the continued wrongness of the Authorities
Of Gloom, a proud lineage which has brought us a litany of 'x will never
happen' and 'y is inevitable' pronouncements which continually turn out to
be entirely wrong. Bo appears to construe it as a logical statement of the
form

 'They' said that 256K DRAMs were the limit; larger DRAMs were developed;
therefore oil will not run out.

while I believe the formulation is

 'They' said that 256K DRAMs were the limit; larger DRAMs were developed;
therefore 'They' are not necessarily correct when 'They' base technology-  
dependent predictions on the premise of no future technology advances.

 In fact the DRAM advances were in large part due not to incremental
lithography refinements, but to novel capacitor structures which greatly
decreased the area per cell by increasing area-specific-capacitance. The
feature shrink accounts for about 4X-8X of the 256X increase in density.
The development of new structures accounts for the other 8X or so, with
improved packaging material science and chemistry providing the elimination
of soft errors. 

 If anyone wants to form logical constructions from this (which I doubt, but
anything's possible on Usenet except civility) my points are that incremental
improvements in technique can provide advances in the use of resources, that
at some point further advances come more profitably from leaps or changes
in axis, that these significant advances while unpredictable do happen with
increasing frequency as the art of invention is nurtured, and that although
it may be unwise to depend on a specific advance in a specific area, you can
bet that if it's worthwhile inventive minds are seeking and will find one.

-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: stuff...
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:10:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.081113.3849@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987) writes:
>Lev Tarasov (bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>: 
>: Corn is petroleum intensive and therefore ethanol from corn does
>: not make much sense. 
>
>Not if you burn Ethanol in the tractor!

AND if you sepparate the energy budget into several fractions:

Silage, for cattle feed.  (and after than Methane from cow poop.  Yes,
the left overs from the methane digester is very good fertilizer too.)

Distillers mash, for cattle feed post ethanol production.  (and see 
above note about methane from said cow poop.)

Expressed Corn Oil, for human feed or diesel tractor, your choice.

Ethanol from fermentable sugers and starches.

I have yet to see an energy budget analysis that took all this
into consideration...  (It is possible to convert the silage
into fermentable sugar as well, but I'd rather feed it to the
cows first ...)

>: However, the key point that I want to raise is that ethanol
>: production has a much greater chance of being energy feasible
>: if it is produced from a perennial source. Corn crops either 
>: need a lot of herbicides or a lot of tillage. They also are 
>: nitrogen hogs and the nitgrogen comes from fossil fuels.

Which is why you want to preserve the nitrogen as protien in the
form of cows ... then the nitrogen budget starts to not be so
important to the fermentable sugars production...

>: However, with a perennial system, the land does not have to
>: be tilled every year, nor does the crop have to be seeded
>: every year. In Canada, research is currently focussed on
>: coppiced poplars and willow as well as a native prairie 
>: grass (switchgrass).

>I think this might be Methanol, not Ethanol...wood vs. grain 
>alchohol.  Both burn a great deal cleaner than the petrochemical
>nightmare of a mixture we call gasoline.

In the beginning, there was one process for converting wood to 
alcohol (destructive distillation) that yielded methanol and one
process for converting sugars/starches to alcohol (fermentation)
that yielded ethanol.

We can now cross those lines due to some new technologies.  Cellulose
can be broken down by a mold (tricodermata veridae ?) into sugar
and fermented to ethanol.  Sugars and starches can be converted to
methanol.  Depending on the economics of the particular area and process, 
the wood could be going into either methanol or ethanol...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
From: bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:09:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Aug16.170941.2621
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Instead of wasting all the time, and gasoline standing in toll-
booth lines, as well as the cost of the toll-booths and personel,
Doesn't it make a lot more sense to have gas taxes pay all the
costs of maintaining our roads. The more I drive, the more gas 
I use. No fancy math needed!
Xref: sparky sci.energy:3975 sci.environment:10643
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:33:34 GMT
Followup-To: sci.energy

In article <1992Aug12.134910.10093@colorado.edu>, weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:

|> Phil, imported oil is no more expensive than domestic oil.
|> The price of oil is affected by what economists call "the law
|> of supply and demand".  Let me refrain from taxing your brain 
|> with the most simplistic economic theories, but instead
|> let us just say that in importing half our oil, our contribution 
|> to world demand is 3.1 billion barrels per year.  When we run out 
|> we will increase world demand by another 3.1 billion barrels per year.  
|> This is a huge increase in world demand.  The increased demand will
|> drive the oil price up.

Let me tax your brain with another economic phrase: "all else
being equal".  For example, you assume no increased production,
or decreased demand, elsewhere, and no introduction of new
alternatives.

If one looks at the production situation, we have the parts
of the former Soviet Union now forming deals with multinational
oil companies on a large scale.  With access to state of the
art petroleum technology, their production should increase
considerably.  Similarly, their consumption has gone way down,
and (given that they are going to get much more efficient
as they are exposed to real prices) is likely to stay down.

Moreover, remember that oil is not a completely free market,
not with Saudi Arabia with so much of it.  The Saudis do not
want oil prices to rise to the point where truly threatening
alternatives, like synfuels, get developed.  This price level
is not far away.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil ->NEVER<-
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 06:25:04 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.165457.5065@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>>	This is a very good point.  As we deplete our oil reserves,  the

There's that "we" shit again.  

>Correct as far as it goes, but you're looking at the cup half-empty.  Another
>factor is that the cost of extracting oil, and the cost of other forms
>of energy, goes down as extraction methods improve.  The cost history of
>oil -- it is near its all-time low price -- demonstrates that the technology 
>is improving faster than the  oilfield quality is dropping.  

Do any of the the-earth's-gonna-end-tomorrow-cuz-we're-dredging-up-the
last-dinasaur-bones-today practictitioners of gloom'n'doom remember back
in the good old days when the air was clean, the water was pure, CP/M
ruled and 64kX1 dynamic ram was the rage?  You remember
how all the talk of the time was that alpha particles, metal migration,
inherent lithography limitations and who knows what else would put a
fundimental on the largest possible RAM chip?  You remember that cap was
widely predicted to be 128K or maybe 256K?   Funny thing happened.
The chip designers obviously did not have time to read about all these 
limitations so in their ignorance, they proceeded to make one meg parts
and then 4 meg parts and even as I speak, 16 meg parts.  How could so 
many armchair quarterbacks be wrong?

Does anyone get the idea the same thing is happening with oil?  While
the "experts" prattle on about only a decade's worth of "proven reserve"
remaining, the oil types, ignorant to a person, just keep on inventing
new ways to find and recover oil.  Amazin' what you can do when you
don't know any better.

John


-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: pcrane@clausius.UVic.CA (Patricia  Crane)
Subject: Alternative Fuel Vehicle Competition
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 21:40:37 GMT

Can anyone supply me with details of Alternative Fuel Vehicle
competitions?  I am particularly interested in natural gas
competitions between universities.

Thanks

Patricia Crane                  pcrane@me.uvic.ca
University of Victoria
(604)721-8935
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 16 Aug 92 02:52:00 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry) writes:


>John de Armond is a flaming asshole who believes, possibly
>because of difficulties with early toilet training, that that
>is a Good Thing To 

From Bo, what higher compliment is possible?

>as a political agenda promoted by persons with such a tenuous
>grasp on reality.

>P.S. I have never had air conditioning in my car, even during
>the 7+ years I lived in and about Atlanta. The claim that A/C
>is a "necessity" is, quite simply, wrong.

What was that about tenuous grasp on reality?

let's try this one on for size.  I don't get cold.  Period.  Not in
the winter, not even in New Hampshire with it -20.  At most I wear
a light windbreaker in the winter.  Suppose, based on this personal
experince, which represents a sample of one, I claimed that heat
is a luxury and not by any means a necessity?  I'd sound like an 
idiot, whouldn't I?  Just like you, in fact.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:34:22 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <11AUG92.07565241@wl.aecl.ca> zukicn@wl.aecl.ca writes:

>On the other hand one can argue how often one's wife is pregnant 8^), 
>generally not 100% in say 5yrs. period (of a vehicle lifetime). I am not
>denying the benefits of A/C, in summer we have 30-35C temperatures often,
>and it is not much fun driving at 4PM. But I feel some of our actions should
>NOT be ONLY market driven or legislation driven or comfort driven. I may be
>a unique animal, but yeah, I'd rather sweat for a few hours than cause
>potential (significant) damage to the ozone, etc.

I congratulate you on your courage and endurance.  I have a few questions
though.  What is your humidity like and how long are your summers.

Down here in the lovely state of Georgia, (North Georgia at that) 35-40C
is normal, any day that it drops as low as 30C is considered a very cool
summer day.  Also our summer lasts from May through September.  It's a
lot easier to put up with the hot stuff if you know it will only last a
short time.  BTW, my car has air conditioning, and on days when the high
is only 30-35C, by the time I drive home, I generally don,t need the
air conditioning either.  Personally I don't use it because I'm cheap.

One other thing that I've noticed that may not have occurred to you.
What is the angle of the sun when it gets hot?  In my experience, having
the sun closer to vertical, just makes it feel hotter, regardless of what
the thermometer says.

>IMHO, the role of government is to protect well being of only you and me, but
>also the generations after us. Human race have in past survived extended 

That is not the governments job, that is your job and my job.  I get very
uneasy when anybody says "I'm doing this for your own good."  Especially
when that somebody has as much power as the government does.  I do not
believe that a benevolent government is possible.

>-Also, do not underestimate technology. Here at Delco we make all kinds of
>-equipment that is used to make sure you can take a family of five
>-and stuff on a long comfortable trip and still get mileage which was
>-unthinkable a few years back. 180 hp 10 years ago meant a 5 liter V8 at
>-10 mpg, now it's a high tech DOHC 2.3 liter at 33 mpg. 

>I am all for technology. But are we going to be able to repair everything 
>we destroy and damage? We have solved some major problems, cured diseases,
>but in that process we have developed new problems nad created new diseases.
>What do you think?

I believe that the evidence is in, and in general, the problems created
by new technologies are fewer and less serious than the problems the
technologies were created to solve.  We are also getting better at
anticipating the negative side effects of new technologies.

BTW, what new diseases.

>Nermin Zukic
-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987)
Subject: Re: stuff...
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 08:11:13 GMT

Lev Tarasov (bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
: 
: Corn is petroleum intensive and therefore ethanol from corn does
: not make much sense. 

Not if you burn Ethanol in the tractor!

: Ethanol mixed in gas though does supposedly
: reduce certain emmission and raises the oxygen content of the 
: mixture. In Ontario, the Corn lobby has gotten tax incentives
: to start production of ethanol. 

Actually, I think the MIXING of alchohol with petroleum just 
prolongs the inevitable...

: However, the key point that I want to raise is that ethanol
: production has a much greater chance of being energy feasible
: if it is produced from a perennial source. Corn crops either 
: need a lot of herbicides or a lot of tillage. They also are 
: nitrogen hogs and the nitgrogen comes from fossil fuels.
: However, with a perennial system, the land does not have to
: be tilled every year, nor does the crop have to be seeded
: every year. In Canada, research is currently focussed on
: coppiced poplars and willow as well as a native prairie 
: grass (switchgrass). Coppicing involves the establishment
: of a tree crop, and then the harvesting of the trees at 
: say 5 year intervals, new shoots then grow out of the stumps.

I think this might be Methanol, not Ethanol...wood vs. grain 
alchohol.  Both burn a great deal cleaner than the petrochemical
nightmare of a mixture we call gasoline.

--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.
hinz@picard.med.ge.com


From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:06:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
 |
 |Do any [people] remember [the time when] 64kX1 dynamic ram was the rage?
 |You remember how all the talk of the time was that alpha particles,
 |metal migration, inherent lithography limitations and who knows what else
 |would put a fundimental (sic) on the largest possible RAM chip?
 |You remember that cap was widely predicted to be 128K or maybe 256K?
 |...  The chip designers ... proceeded to make one meg parts
 |and then 4 meg parts and even as I speak, 16 meg parts.

 |Does anyone get the idea the same thing is happening with oil? ...
 |the oil types ... just keep on inventing new ways to find and recover oil.
 |
 |John

Purged of drivel, the argument seems to be:

 1. Fact 
    It was widely believed in the late 1970's that there would be fundamental
    physical limitations on the density of RAM chips.

 2. Alleged fact
    That limit was estimated (by many?) to be about 256K.

 3. Fact
    The actual limit on RAM density is more than 2 orders of magnitude
    higher than 256K.

 Conclusion
    Recoverable oil will last forever.

Is it just me, or do there seem to be some steps missing in this argument?

Bo Curry
Eco-Nazis for Family Values