HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Energy Demand
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.100122.14956@bernina.ethz.ch> eric14@bernina.ethz.ch (Eric Baltischwiler) writes:

>I was reading an articule the other day (I
>forget where) that asserted that Air Conditioning is directly
>responsible for population shifts in the USA today.  I've lived in
>Florida and California and one can certainly adjust to the climate,
>but I have to admit that Pheonix AZ would be a ghost town without Air
>Conditioning.  To bring Scots and Swissmen into the conversation, just
>talk about heating.

	Interestingly enough,  most of the building air conditioning in
the Southwest is done with evaporative coolers which use far less energy
than regular air conditioners.  A typical swamp cooler only needs power
for a rather large fan,  a small pump to circulate water,  and several
gallons of water a day.  Of course water is at a premium in cities like
phoenix,  but under present economic conditions,  a swamp cooler is
much more economical to operate. 

	Then again,  good design can greatly reduce the need for air
conditioning -- many Indian publeos in the area are constructed to
minimize insolation during the summer and maximize it during the winter.

	Air conditioning probably is a bigger factor in energy consumption
for areas like Florida that are too humid to use evaporative coolers.


-- 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:42:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.120226.29432@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.181007.17295@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
> >Our current energy consumption, from all sources, is 1/100,000th of
> >the energy received by Earth from the Sun. That's 0.001%, the change
>
>Actually, more like 1/10,000.

Yearly solar influx is roughly 1.86E+18 watt-hours. World energy consumption
is around 15E+12 watt-hours. That's roughly 1/100,000th. Where's my mistake?

> >Your naive faith in the power of government directed R&D is touching,
> >but there is *no* assurance that *any* amount of R&D funding can break
> >fundamental Carnot limits on the low grade energy of diffuse sunlight.
>
>Actually, the "temperature" of sunlight is quite high, more than 5000
>K.  It is diffuse, yes, but its entropy is fairly low.  If we could
>collect sunlight at the Carnot limit at the earth's surface we could
>convert more than 90% of its energy to work.  The problem is one of
>engineering and economics, not fundamental thermodynamic limits.

It may not be "fundamental" but I haven't seen any process that raises
a working fluid to anywhere near 5,000 K using the solar influx on
anything but a tiny scale (IE solar furnace). The best large scale
systems do well to reach 500 F. The Carnot limit for a heat engine
is a ratio of inlet to outlet temperature of the *working* fluid.

Gary

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Any info. on hydrogen power for cars??
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:49:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.175417.10952@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

 >	The currently most economical way to make hydrogen is from the coal gas
 > process,  which also produces CO,  but the CO can also be burned to produce
 > CO2 and quite a bit of energy,  so except for the CO2 emission,  this could be
 > fairly clean.  Most people who talk about a hydrogen economy,  however,
 > suggest that we make the hydrogen by electrolysis of water,  getting
 > electricity from whatever they believe is an environmentally benign and
 > potentially economical source:  nuclear energy,  ground-based solar,  wind,
 > and solar power from space satellites have all been suggested.


Actually, coal gas is not the usual source (although it is used
in some places).  Most hydrogen comes from reformed natural gas.  The
process is similar: gas is heated and reacted with steam, perhaps
with some oxygen.  You get a mixture of CO, CO2, steam and hydrogen.
This reaction is endothermic.

Natural gas has the advantage over coal that the output is richer in
hydrogen, and has much less sulfur, the scrubbing of which requires
additional equipment.  Biomass, btw, has much less sulfur than coal.
I have seen a projection that biomass-derived hydrogen is cheaper than
electrolytic hydrogen for electricity prices greater than about
$.02/kWh.

The CO, by the way, is then "shifted" by the reaction CO + H2O --> CO2
+ H2.  This makes separation easier, as CO2 can be removed by various
chemical processes more easily than CO, which would be done by
cryogenic separation (that's done too, in some places, where CO is
needed as a feedstock).

If the resulting gas must be purged of CO or CO2 (for example, if it
is to be used in fuel cells or in reactions where these gases could
poison catalysts) the gas is then fed into a methanation reactor,
where any remaining carbon is converted back to methane (an exothermic
reaction).

Any of these reforming processes can benefit from a source of process
heat.  High temperature nuclear reactors (liquid metal or high
temperature gas cooled reactors) would do nicely.  This would
be a more efficient use of the reactor's thermal energy than production
of electricity for conventional electrolysis.



> comparable gasolene-fuel vehicles.  Also,  photochemical smog is caused by
> a combination of hydocarbons and NOx,  so simply reducing the hydrocarbons
> or the NOx alone could make a large contribution towards the reduction of
> smog and improving air quality.

Some places, like Atlanta, have abundant natural hydrocarbons, from
trees.  So NOx control would likely be necessary to reduce smog there.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: nuclear waste
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:51:38 GMT

In article <4345.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:

>PD>This conveniently ignores the capacity factors for the machines.  A
>PD>well run nuclear plant can generate its rated capacity 80% of time.
>PD>Wind turbines can average perhaps 20%.  Moreover, the downtime for the
>PD>nuclear plants can in general be scheduled during seasons of low
>PD>demand.
>
>There are large parts of the country where these "nickel" wind turbines
>can produce their rated power more than 80% of the time.


I find that very difficult to believe.  Indeed, your figures appear to
be inconsistent with this claim.  At $1.3/W and 80% capacity, assuming
an O&M cost of $.01/kWh, 4% real interest rates, and a 30 year
lifespan the cost of power from wind turbines would be about $.02/kWh.

At a 20% capacity factor, the cost comes to about $.05/kWh.

The 20% figure is not just made up; it is the capacity factor at which
current wind farms have plateaued, after increasing steadily for some
years.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: henigan@quando.quantum.de (Kevin Henigan)
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Organization: Quantum Software GmbH, Dortmund, Germany
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:21:11 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov13150417@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>By the way, how is the cooking done in this self-sufficient house?

By the way, did you read the article the first time :-)

]
]Flameless catalytic  combustion  of  hydrogen  provides  heat  for
]cooking on  the hydrogen  gas stove and for the minimal additional
]room heating  needed under unfavourable conditions in winter.
]


>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305


-- 
 Kevin Henigan. UUCP:     {backbone}!unido!quando!henigan OR henigan@quando.uucp
  Quantum GmbH  Bitnet:   henigan%quando@UNIDO(.bitnet)
    Dortmund    internet: henigan@quantum.de, or henigan@quando.quantum.de
    Germany     advert  : PEDIGREE - the only genealogy IIGS prog with a GUI
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:01:16
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1ebhauINNm1l@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Nov18.151942.7756@nmt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: houle@nmt.edu's message of 18 Nov 92 15:19:42 GMT


   In article <1ebhauINNm1l@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

   >Personally, I can't
   >imagine very many situations in which having to wait 30 seconds between the
   >time you turn on the ignition and the time you can start the car moving would
   >be a serious problem.

The police might not agree ;-)

(yeah, I know emergency vehicles are a small part of the
problem, but they're going to get pretty expensive if they're
going to have to be made or operated differently from ordinary
vehicles...)
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:35:49 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

Don't worry about the water shortage in California.  Just put boiler feed
quality water in the same ditribution system we use now for fossil fuels.
Don't you think the major refineries (most located on bodies of water)
couldn't add the requisite evaporators to make distilled water?

And conservation won't be a problem when the politicians decide to add
50 cents or a buck per gallon tax on the water that goes into personal
transportation boilers.......

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Followup-To: sci.energy
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:28:59

The trouble with comparing recommended exposure levels is that
no Government agency will recommend exposures that will cause
even one cancer case in the U.S. 40 years after the exposure.
This is quite calculable for plutonium.  I'll bet the model
for cyanide is that if it doesn't make you sick right away,
then the exposure is probably harmless.  I suppose that is
correct.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Subject: Re: Any info. on hydrogen power for cars??
Organization: Puplic-Access-Xenix-System
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 00:55:59 GMT

In <1992Nov18.185800.11997@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.131916.12009@bsu-ucs> 00bndaniels@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>>I would like to know if any US car company will make or research
>>for a car that can run on hydrogen.  I only know of VW and BMW
>>that are doing research on makinga car that can run on hydrogen
>>I believe that hydrogen would be a great fuel for cars, and power 
>>plants because the only by-product when it is burned is water.
>>Any information on this topic is greatly appreciated.

>Hydrogen is a tricky fuel to make work in an IC engine. Pre-ignition
>is a severe problem. And of course the high chamber temperature and
>pressure still generates oxides of nitrogen, only the HC emissions are 
>eliminated. Current three way catalysts, to reduce the NOx, require HC 
>to fuel them to the necessary high temperature. I suppose a fuel rich 
>mixture of hydrogen could be used instead, but that could lead to a risk 
>of cat converter explosions and cost mileage. The real problem, of course, 
>remains tankage. It takes a lot of hydrogen to equal the energy content of 
>a gallon of gasoline, and hydrogen is extremely low density at STP. Large 
>very high pressure tankage, or large cryogenic tankage is required to 
>replace the gasoline tank's energy capacity.

>Using an external combustion engine (see discussion of steam power) would
>eliminate most of the NOx and all of the pre-ignition problems, but wouldn't 
>solve the tankage problem. Hydrogen is less dense than air. 

>Gary


Maybe you should all take a look at Stanley Meyers Water Fuel cell,
which is a new way of generating hydrogen inside the car from water !!

So you just have water inside your tanke... This is the best
solution..

Best regards, Stefan Hartmann, c/o Ingenierbuero Gatz & Hartmann.
email to:  leo@zelator.in-berlin.de


-- 
 
*************************************************************
*  Stefan Hartmann       This is how to contact me:         *
*  EMAIL: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de                          *
*  Phone : ++ 49 30 344 23 66      FAX : ++ 49 30 344 92 79 *
*************************************************************
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 17 Nov 1992 21:22:19 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov17.180135.25760@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, sherwood@space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) writes:
>4.  I think that the original reason Stanley's had pilot lights was to keep 
>the boiler from freezing in winter.  Some clever design is called for here, 
>with either pilot light and/or systems that self drain into a holding tank
>won't get bent out of shape by freezing, and could be warmed easily with
>either a plug or a torch.  

Or, of course, you could do what they do in Idaho:  Have a resistance heater,
and plug your car into an electrical to prevent freezing at night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: 00bndaniels@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Any info. on hydrogen power for cars??
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:19:15 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

I would like to know if any US car company will make or research
for a car that can run on hydrogen.  I only know of VW and BMW
that are doing research on makinga car that can run on hydrogen
I believe that hydrogen would be a great fuel for cars, and power 
plants because the only by-product when it is burned is water.
Any information on this topic is greatly appreciated.
Barron Daniels
Ball State University
Muncie Indiana
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: More External-Combustion Info
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:28:10 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov17.205149.18798@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@zaphod.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:
>> 3.  Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than
>> water (Something that wouldn't freeze, and could act as a lubricant.)
> 
>  For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd
>is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/
>condenser and associated weight.

That's fine if you have LOTS of water to waste.  In case you haven't heard, the
state that's pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a
major drought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Followup-To: sci.energy
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:23:52

What is the source of your scenario about the microgram of Pu?  What
does it assume about the chemical state?  Does it take into account
eventual harm from the alpha radiation, or is it concerned with
chemical poisoning?

What about Bernard Cohen's willingness to eat and breathe plutonium
oxide?  To be elected President of the Health Physics Society, he
certainly must be regarded by health physicists as an expert.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace and nuclear power
Keywords: C'mon, post facts, not incoherent ramblings.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 20:33:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.033243.24532@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown) writes:
>>>	It seems to me that Greenpeace would like to see the
>>> countries of the world drop their nuclear power programs.  Why is
>>> this?  What reasons to they have to want to ban nuclear power?

>A big part of it is the unsolved problem of how to dispose of
>radioactive waste.

No, for the hundreth time. The SCIENTIFIC aspects of disposal/reprocessing
have been solved. What is still unsolved is the public`s (and Greenhype`s)
irrational fear of ANYTHING radioactive, no matter where it is or safe as
it may be.

>> A related question is, given there is now lots of that evil plutonium in
>> the world, in the form of bombs and "spent" fuel rods, if Greenpeace got
>> their way, what would they do with it all?

>I think their first priority is to stop the production of it: ``First we
>have to stop producing this crap.  Then we will have to figure out
>what to do with what we already have.''

You won't stop producing it. The technology is there, and there`s no
going back. However, as countries like France and Japan learn to use this
plutonium to keep their reactors running, then the problem of "stockpiling"
will be solved.

>>  I know they'd shut down every
>> nuke in the world so no more gets created but what of the stuff that
>> already exists?  Can't fission it, else that would mean running the
>> nukes (or setting off the bombs...)

>That is the point.

You`re really out there. Shutting down a majority of the electrical 
capacity in Europe? And then what?

I suggest doing some reading on MOX fuel for reusing plutonium and
Yucca Mountain (if we end up doing something stupid like throwing it
away). Contrary to the Greenhype, plutonium is not always a bad thing.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: u926135@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Adrian Hassall Lewis)
Subject: Re: Australian Research Reactor Propos
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:31:17 GMT

foesydney@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:


>AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR LOBBY TRIES TO BULLDOZE REACTOR REVIEW

>WANTED: ANYONE FAMILAR WITH CONVENTIONAL REVIEW PROCEDURES USED 
>IN COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS FOR REACTOR PROPOSALS.

>The Australian government is allowing only a month and half for 
>public submissions to a government review board in an attempt to 
>bulldoze through a new research reactor proposal. If succesful, 
>the reactor will likely be built on the site of an older research 
>reactor just 1.6 kilometres from residential housing.

>Organisations and people working in the peace, nuclear and energy 
>fields, are requested to lobby the Australian government to 
>extend the closing date for submissions beyond 18 December 1992.

>The Australian government is highly sensitive to international 
>pressure, so any evidence that demonstrates that this review 
>fails to meet acceptable international criteria could prove 
>extremely embarassing for the ministers and bureaucrats involved.

>Please phone or fax the Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating 
>with your concern: tel: 61-6-277-7700; fax: 61-6-273-4100

>Individuals who wish to submit evidence to the review should 
>contact:
>The Secretariat, Research Reactor Review, GPO Box 9839, Sydney, 
>NSW 2001, Australia.

>Please inform Movement Against Uranium Mining ( fax: 61-2-281-
>5216, tel: 61-2-212-4538), or Friends of the Earth on 
>peg:foesydney, of your action

This can be taken as being a flame..

I presume whoever posted this is strongly agin the replacement of HIFAR, and
I'd like to know why.  Are they only opposed to the location or are they a
Luddite opposed to nuclear technology and the "nuclear lobby"?  Because if
they are they can get stuffed.  (actually, this _is_ a flame)

I support the idea of Australia having a nuclear technology industry, simply
because I believe it that there are too many important medical, research, and
industrial applications for it to be ignored.  NOTE, I said _technology_, I
don't support nuclear power generation as an option for Australia.

I'd be happy to see this issue discussed, but lets do it in aus.general.

ajax

PS - I am a Sydneyite
From: greg@cherokee.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Greg Moritz)
Subject: Re: Petroleum subsidies question.
Reply-To: greg@cherokee.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz)
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:54:35 GMT

dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen) asks:

=Does anyone out there have any figures or an estimate of the amount 
=of subsidies (direct or indirect) for oil and fossil fuels?  I know 
=that the price of gasoline is <half of what it is in the rest of the 
=industrialized world. I'm convinced that the price of ... is subsidized,

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) responded:

> ...  Great Britain ... gasoline there is taxed at a rate of about 260%.  
> Now, if you consider not taxing gasoline at that high a rate to be a 
> subsidy, then I guess gasoline is subsidized in this country.  Me, I 
> just think that the Brits are overtaxed.

The price of gasoline absent of taxes would be about $1.18 - .40 = 
$.78 per gallon of regular (87 octane) unleaded here in Huntsville, AL.
(The 40 cents comes from 4 cents local, 18 cents state, the rest, 
Federal.  I may be off by a couple of cents here or there, but the 
idea is the same.)  Gas prices, adjusted for inflation and taxes are
lower than they have been since the 1920's.  Adjusted for inflation,
the price is still lower than it was back in the 1960's (here in the US).

For better or for worse, this low price probably accounts for the 
tremendous per-capita imports of petroleum in the US and accounts for
$60-70 billion of our trade deficit with the rest of the world.