HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kron@ueshiba.Corp.Sun.COM (Kenneth Kron)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Off-shore wind power: ideas & discussion
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:27:42 GMT
Reply-To: kron@ueshiba.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ueshiba.corp.sun.com

To be honest I don't know what a Darrius Wind Turbine is but I live on the coast and the wind
blows nearly constantly but there isn't one Wind->Engergy conversion device in the whole town
that I can see (Pacifica CA).

I am very interested in the subject and will do research (including putting something up) if and when
possible.

BTW.  Do you have refrences on the Darrius Wind Turbine?


kk
From: dgg@crosfield.co.uk (deepak gupta)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: electric cars
Keywords: efficiency, pollution, reliability
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:13:38 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.


I've seen articles recently in this newsgroup discussing electric cars, but
all of them (to my knowledge) have been about the American market.

Does anyone out there know of suppliers of electric cars for the European
market, or more specifically, the British market ?

Thanks in advance.

Deepak Gupta
e-mail: dgg@crosfield.co.uk

******************************************************************************
     Still trying to think of an incredibly witty signature !
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jws@cica4.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: Continuously Variable Transmissions
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:58:52 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

In article <1992Apr9.213013.19678@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>
>I can see you know nothing at all about electro-hydraulic
>control systems.  A CVT requires too much power to be
>controlled using electric actuators alone, and the belt
>clamping pressure is supplied by a hydraulic pump.
>

 Seems like to me a hydraulic actuator is pretty wasteful of energy; a 
worm drive from an electric motor would hold position with no power 
input. I think one thing that hangs people up is the idea that these
transmissions -must- be infinitely variable, when you could probably get
by with a large but finite number of speeds and a lockup torque converter
or something like that. Let the donut soak up the bumps from indexing between
ratios. 
--
##########################################################################
#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!#
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Summary: NOxious gases almost inevitable in hydrogen combustion.
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:38:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: fmsrl7.1992Apr13.213846.11719
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI

The People In The Know tell me that NOx production is a
function of engine mixture (going lean past stoichiometric,
it rises quickly), engine compression (higher = more NOx),
spark angle (more lead generally = more NOx), and a whole
host of factors like combustion chamber shape and intake
charge density.  I gather that quantifying the chemistry
in an intermittent-combustion engine from first principles
is not a simple matter.

I do understand that NO and NO2 are more energetic than
N2 and O2, so at high temperatures the Gibbs free energy
promotes formation of the oxides.  At high pressure, NO2's
greater density lowers the P*v energy of the system and is
similarly favored.  Rich mixtures have little free oxygen
to form NOx; at high load, switching from a 14.6:1 to a
13.0:1 gasoline/air mix cuts NOx by half or more.

I've seen a hydrogen engine proposal which took advantage
of the wide flammability limits of hydrogen in air to
use mixture leaning rather than air throttling to regulate
engine torque.  This is good for efficiency but bad for
NOx emissions.
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: vpmg9492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Vance P. Morrison)
Subject: Re: Cost to drive electric cars
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:59:28 GMT

eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Eldred) writes:

>In many cases comparisons to gas powered vehicles are
>made, with the conclusion that electric cars are cheaper to run.
>I don't feel that these are fair comparisons, in general.  To make
>a fair comparison, the following factors should be taken into
>consideration:

>1.  The cars should be equivalent in size, power, and accessories
>(such as power brakes, air conditioning, lights, etc.)  If an electric
>car is putting out an average of 4 hp, then the only fair comparison
>is with a gas car with 4 hp.  

I agree with the general principle of this, (that the comparision
should be made between items with simmilar performance etc), but not 
its application as you describe.  For example electric motors are usually
capable of short bursts of power well above their average power, but
internal combustion engines do not have this desirable characteristic.
Thus frankly I would expect that the average power rating for a electric
vehicle to be less than a internal combustion engine for the same 
user performance.

>2.  When comparing the operation cost of electric vs gasoline cars,
>the taxes imposed on both forms of energy should be considered.  The
>tax on gasoline currently consists of nearly half the pump price, while
>the tax on electricity is much less significant.  Thus the real price
>of gasoline is much less than what we pay at the pump, and this should
>be factored into the comparison.  

There are two points to be made here.  First is that some of the tax
on gasoline can rightly be assigned to the negative aspects of its use 
(air polution etc).  Thus IF electricity were generated polution free
(a VERY big IF, but you might imagine something like PVs producing the
electricity at very low environmental impact), then the tax on gasoline 
SHOULD be higher because we want the cost to reflect the TRUE TOTAL cost 
(not just the cost of producing the fuel).

Now granted, the present tax is MUCH higher than this.  Most of it in
fact goes to maintaining and building road (which both eletric and gas
cars will need).  Thus you are quite right that in the long term an
additional tax will have to be imposed on electricity if electic vehicles
become widespread.

On the other hand, I think it IS unfair to make this comparison today.
Remeber that electric vehicles are a very new technology and thus
it is not suprising that it is more expensive.  Gas cars have had 50-100
years of R&D to get them where they are now.   Thus giving electrics
a tax break in the form of not paying road taxes is a very reasonable
thing to do in the short term.  It has the added advantage that this
subsidy occures by default (it is much harder to get government to do
something than to NOT do something).   By the time electrics become
popular (probably at least 10 years), however, the technology and economics 
must change so that electric can pull their own weight in terms of
road taxes.

Vance
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Electric vs. gas cars
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 16:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.062736.8109@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>Does the industry know how to "safely store" its radioactive waste for the
>long term?  Is it doing so?  If so, could you (or someone else) point me to
>some literature on the subject?
>
>If we know how to deal with long-term waste products of nuclear reactors,
>and are doing so, then even the staunchest environmentalists should have
>no problems with nuclear power (if they're amenable to reason, that is :-) ).

They're not. Several solutions to waste, used commercially, but not in the U.S.:

In situ vitrification
Reprocessing/Actinide burning 
Long term burial in a geologically stable area

Find any good nuclear engineering textbook and look these up. You'll find out
that the engineering solutions have been found.  The problem is the political
mess in this country.

>>It is appropriate that you use the word "wastes" alone, dropping the
>>adjective "nuclear".  I worry about wastes that might damage DNA also (plus
>>a myriad of other effects).  Nuclear waste is not among these.
>
>Again, could you please cite some references to back up this statement?

There are much worse chemical wastes that are not as stringently controlled
that could make you and your descendents very unhappy indeed. I think that is
what the poster meant.  You can check EPA regs for this kind of information.

Tino
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The nuclear scientist will prepare the bed on which mankind must lie; and
 if mankind doesn't fit - well, that will be just too bad for mankind."
                                      - Aldous Huxley
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Cost to drive electric cars
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:35:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.135928.14974@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> vpmg9492@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Vance P. Morrison) writes:

 >On the other hand, I think it IS unfair to make this comparison today.
 >Remeber that electric vehicles are a very new technology and thus
 >it is not suprising that it is more expensive.  Gas cars have had 50-100
 >years of R&D to get them where they are now.

Electrics are a very new technology?  Hardly!

Electric cars were competing directly with IC engine cars from the
very beginning.  They only lost in the market when the electric
starter was introduced for IC engines (at which point they had no
advantages, and their short range killed them).  This was back in the
1920s.

With the exception of goverment mandates, I see no reason why an
all-electric car should have a market advantage over a hybrid car,
with a fraction of the battery mass and a small, high efficiency
gasoline engine.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Summary: Hydrogen doesn't work well due to compression heat.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:03:03 GMT

In <1992Apr15.223236.16722@grace.dsir.govt.nz> srgxbhh@grace.dsir.govt.nz says:
>I wonder if Octane Ratings actually have much relevance to gaseous fuels,
>especially hydrogen with its strong tendency to pre-ignite and backfire
>unless a " clean " engine with timed fuel injection is adopted.

It has every relevance.  Octane rating is a measure of resistance
to pre-ignition.  The ease of ignition of hydrogen translates directly
into a very low octane rating (and maximum compression ratio).  If
memory serves, hydrogen ignites in air at about 400 degrees F (477 K),
which is about equal with (or even lower than) heptane.  

A typical intake air temperature on a car today is 100 F (311 K).
If we consider the air-hydrogen mixture to be an ideal gas with
a ratio of specific heats of 1.4, its temperature after being
compressed by n:1 will be its original temperature times n^(.4/1.4).
In this case, we have a maximum temperature ratio of 1.534, which
leads to a maximum compression ratio of 4.47:1 (1.534 ^ (1.4/.4))
before the mixture will ignite itself due to compression alone.
After ignition, the unburned mixture will be compressed further
by the expansion of the burned gases, so the achievable compression
ratio is somewhat lower.

The obvious solution is direct fuel injection and either diesel or
spark ignition of the hydrogen, but at full-rich mixture the
required volume of hydrogen is about 40% of the air volume, so the
injector pistons will be almost half the size of the power pistons.
This gets power-hungry in a hurry.

Summary:  Hydrogen makes a lousy fuel for an internal combustion engine.
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie)
Subject: Re: Darrieus turbines
Originator: hardie@herald.usask.ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:51:51 GMT

> From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
> Subject: Darrius wind turbines (was Re: Off-shore wind power
> In article <kuotcuINN8vm@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> kron@ueshiba.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
> >To be honest I don't know what a Darrius Wind Turbine is
> 
> If memory serves, a Darrius turbine is a couple of hemi-cylinders
> offset by one radius, which look like this from the end:
>                _______
> 	      /	      \
> 	    /	        \
> 	   |	      .  |
> 		   |	         |
> 		    \	        /
> 		      \_______/
> 

Nope. The Darrieus turbine is often referred to as an "eggbeater" because
it looks like a two-bladed eggbeater. It rotates on a vertical axis just
like eggbeater blades. Its main advantage is that the drive unit/generator
etc are on the ground and so are easier to get at. One disadvantage is that,
because it is set on the ground, the wind speed lower down is not as high
as that intercepted by a standard type of rotor which is typically at a 
height of 30 or so meters. On the other hand the Darrieus does not have to
be turned into the wind as it'll take the wind from any direction.
I can't remember the name of the type Russ is referring to (hypocyclic?).

Pete Hardie@herald.usask.ca
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: marcos@ichips.intel.com (Marcos O. Camargo)
Subject: Re: Biogas
Originator: marcos@pdx047
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:57:18 GMT

There has been a discussion going on about generation of methane using
organic matter.  Could somebody, please, post how to build the system
in a small farm?

Questions I have:

1. Is the hole just a hole without any lining, or lined with bricks?

2. How do you cover the hole?

3. Put a pipe on top of hole and run the pipe to a woodstove?  What kind of pipe?

4. Does it need any valves to control gas flow?

Also, if you can direct me to any good book or paper on the subject, I would
greatly appreciate it.

Thanks,


-- 
Marcos O. Camargo             |  e-mail:  marcos@ichips.intel.com
Intel Corp.  JF1-19           |  phone :  (503) 696-4273
5200 N.E. Elam Young Parkway  |  FAX   :  (503) 681-9017
Hillsboro, Oregon  97124      |
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Electric vs. gas cars
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:00:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: mindlink.11345
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I don't know if I've missed anything but has anybody here said anything about
the power stations or dams that will have to be built to provide electricity to
charge the batteries of the electric cars?  And isn't there also the expense of
decommissioning nuclear plants when they are no longer useful?  Nuclear power
plants don't last forever.  Then there is the unfortunate fact that a lot of
people don't trust the nuclear power industry.  Result is that if the industry
did announce a way to safely store or, better yet, to somehow render the waste
non-radioactive, a lot of people wouldn't believe the glad news.  If I come
across as an unthinking fanatic, maybe I am.  However, I worry far less about
an explosion that about wastes that might damage DNA and create problems for
people born 100 years from now.

Oh, and another thing.  I think an electric car better be good on the highway
for a few hundred miles.  I like to drive from BC to Alberta.  I guess it's a
way of going on a holiday.
As for government taxation, we all know governments will tax whatever they can.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Summary: Get real.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:22:10 GMT

In <1466300055@igc.org> Environmental Studies School <ssu@igc.org> writes:

[Aside:  Are we going to have to junk all postings to sci.* originating
 at igc.org in order to have anything worth reading?]

>As for low NOx, some fuels (i.e. Hydrogen) don't
>really have this problem.

Hydrogen has a rather substantial NOx problem.  You
should look things up before posting.

>A more certain method is to pre-cool intake air by drawing air through the
>radiator and then into the air filter.

The radiator is hotter than the ambient air and will pre-heat
the intake air rather substantially.  You cannot cool the
intake air below ambient without active refrigeration, and
that requires using some of the engine output power.

Strike 2, Karber.

>If you really want to maximize 
>performance and cut all pollution with an internal combustion engine, use H2.

H2 cannot be used in spark-ignition engines with high compression
due to its extremely low ignition temperature.  Low compression
means low efficiency, which means low power output, which means
low performance.  H2 also displaces air in the intake, which
reduces volumetric efficiency and thus power.  The NOx emitted
from lean H2 combustion under pressure will combine with any
ambient hydrocarbons (such as terpenes from pine trees) to
yield photochemical smog.

You sure managed to stuff a lot of totally erroneous stuff
into one sentence.  Is that something they teach at igc?

>		- Matt Karber, SSU

Strike 3, you're out.  Try reading and thinking before
posting next time.  Are you perchance a student of the
Claire Gilbert school of inconvenient-fact-ignoring?
-- 
Russ Cage              wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Subject: Re: Internal Combustion Engines
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 19:59:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1466300055@igc.org> 
	Environmental Studies School <ssu@igc.org> writes:

[reformatted and edited]

>	To answer some of your questions: First, a gaseous fuel is
>delivered with a closed, sealed pressurized carburetor. The
>main concern is getting all fuel to the combustion chamber. As
>for low NOx, some fuels (i.e. Hydrogen) don't really have this problem.

You are mistaken.  According to BMW tech reports on their experimental
H2 car, NOx is a considerable problem.  They plan to use a catalyst
and lambda sensor in order to meet stringent new DIN standards modelled
after the CARB (Calif.) standards.
-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kudzu@tfs.com (Michael Sierchio)
Subject: Re: Darrius wind turbines (was Re: Off-shore wind power
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:27:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.191455.12118@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
	wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:

>
>If memory serves, a Darrius turbine is a couple of hemi-cylinders
>offset by one radius, which look like this from the end:
>               _______
>	      /	      \
>	    /	        \
>	   |	      .  |
>		   |	         |
>		    \	        /
>		      \_______/
>

Ha! That's a Savonius rotor.  The Darrieus is the "eggbeater" kind.
The S-Rotor is self-starting and has good low rpm torque -- the
D-Rotor is not self-starting, but very efficient.

The propeller-type are still the most efficient, with fewer blades
being better.  A One-bladed prop might have a balance problem or
two....

Remember the Betz limit, which is the maximum theoretical limit of
conversion of wind energy to mechanical energy, is approx. 59%

-- 
Michael Sierchio                               TRW Financial Systems
kudzu@tfs.com                                     1947 Center Street
                                             Berkeley, CA 94704-1105
(MKS2)                                                  510.704.3380
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: a722756@pan.mc.ti.com (W. D. Rolph)
Subject: Re: Conservation (was Re: Green Coal (:-) (was Re: Victor ...)
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:52:15 GMT


In article <1992Apr6.142341.22404@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (anmar mirza) writes:
|> In article <64753@apple.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
|>
|> 
|> First a bit of background.  Alternative energy systems is a serious
|> hobby for me.  One of the things I do is energy use surveys and
|> recommendations for energy reduction before designing a system (or for
|> people who just want to reduce their bills).
|> 
|> [stuff deleted]
|> Am I a fanatic?  Yes.  Am I obsessed?  Yes.  Am I an eco-nazi? No, I
|> just like being self sufficient and saving money.  But part of my
|> obsessiveness pays off in being able to spot the minor energy drains
|> in a household.  You know, the ones that add up to a major energy
|> drain.  This in turn gives me a wide range of options to offer a
|> client.
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! Not IU's!# Support Search
|> EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! # and Rescue,
|> N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion# GET LOST!
|> Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #

Your discussion was well reasoned, and, scratching on the back of an envelope,
your assertions on energy reduction seem plausible, with the possible exception
of you ability to completely cut over to photovoltaic, and to evaluate that
requires a detailed discussion of the details of your system.
 
It is clear that modest energy conservation efforts can reduce household usage by
15% to I will accept in extreme cases as much as 75% (your top number, I
believe).  

My issue with energy conservation as a means of energy capacity augmentation is
based on two issues:
 
     1)  industrial usage
 
     2)  the exponential growth of energy over time
 
Household usage is small compared to industrial usage, and no fixed amount of
conservation can compensate for exponential growth.  IN short we will need in the
near future large amounts of high capacity energy sources.  The only question to
my mind is what will they be?  Coal?  Oil?  Wind (we want the landscape covered
with windmills everywhere?) etc etc.

I appreciate your well reasoned comments they were quite interesting.
-- 

Regards.
 
Don Rolph  a722756@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263