HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Subject: The start of the thread (was Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 09:24:58 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep16.230406.6448@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.165133.18140@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>In article <BuMECK.7I4@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>
>>Whoa.  Storage is needed if solar is to take on a major fraction of
>>electricity demand, say more than 10-20%.  Even 10-20% penetration is
>>not chicken feed.
>
>Does anyone know the present percentage supplied by PEAKing capacity?
>This is the immediate penetration available to the solar market.  
>Somehow I thought it was greater than 20% ...

This is where the whole solar market vs PEAK market thread started.

Note that the context is 'when is storage needed?' and the contention
made is that at market penetrations up to 20% of total demand,
storage should be optional or a non-issue.

There is no contention that solar is going to own the entire peaking
plant market.

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Water useage(was Re: IN-LINE WATER HEATERS)
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 26 Sep 92 00:52:13 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

Oops.
that should be .03 acre-feet, or .368 acre feet a year.
Still a decent amount of water, and then some.
From: egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:33:18 GMT
Organization: PHILOSYS Software GmbH, Unterschleissheim, Germany

In article <BuwL59.8t1@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>
>>	No,  because it doesn't.  Compute the percentage of the American
>>land area that is *already* covered with buildings;  rooftop PV can provide
>>a considerable amount of energy without the destruction of wild lands.
>
>And how do you propose that these people be forced to put PVs on their roofs?

Making dirty energy from fossile and nuclear power plants much more
expensive is one way! The market economy will do the rest. If solar
energy from PV on roofs is cheaper than the energy from other power plants
poeple will install the systems.

>
>>	In addition,  nobody is suggesting that we use PV for all our
>>electricity needs.  The need for storage can be reduced in the same way that
>>we manage peak demand today;  we can schedule certain uses of energy around
>>availibility.  As part of the energy mix with existing hydro,  wind and
>>biomass systems,  the need for storage can be reduced.  If the current
>>densities in LN2 superconductors can be improved,  superconducting magnetic
>>storage might actually be practical.
>
>Look, I'm all in favor of better technology being used if it makes economic
>sense.  If it doesn't, it really isn't "better".  Maybe someday some kind of 
>PV electricity might make sense, but let's let the economy decide that rather 
>than wide-eyed environmentalists.
>

PV energy is often already competitive, especially in off grid systems.

>
>--Brian

Emil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Naepflein                   _--_|\       Phone: +49 8452 70099
Sedelbreite 15        A fan of  /      \      Mail:  egn%philos.uucp@unido
W-8069 Geisenfeld               \_.--._/
Germany                               v
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Need info on small wind t
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:16:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 


MPC>        Could someone provide me with some information on where I might
MPC>order a small wind generator. Not having a great site for wind energy I'm n
MPC>interested in getting a 500+ watt generator. Something in the 50-250 watt
MPC>range is more my speed. A 600watt solar array provides the majority of my
MPC>house's energy need but as I am building a demonstration system a small win
MPC>setup would be nice for completeness. Noise and safety are a major
MPC>consideration so any unit with a gear box is probably out. Our winds are ma
MPC>light when they exist but occasionally get into the 60-70 range. Since I
MPC>live in a residential neighborhood near the end of the airport's glide path
MPC>the machine will be at less than optimum height and must handle the resulti
MPC>turbulence without throwing blades into the neighbors yards.
MPC>Thanks in advance for the info.

According to their ads in "Home Power" magazine,

World Power Technologies, Inc. 19 N. Lake Ave., Duluth, MN 55802,
218-722-1492, fax 218-727-6888 has a 600W Whisper wind generator which
is more than you asked but might fill the bill.

Lake Michigan Wind and Sun, 414-837-2267
Kansas Wind Power, 913-364-4407

The Thomas Register has some others.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: --Early Turbine Still
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:16:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

DTB>Oops.  The Columbia turns north and goes though mid Washington state, and
DTB>then up into Canada (going up river).

Should have looked at the map. I confused their distribution area with
that of the Columbia River Valley. They distribute power into western
Montana.

I apologize for the error. First time this hour I've been wrong.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E--
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Arguments
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:11:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

JW>Fossil fuel plants are going to be built in large numbers throughout the
JW>world over the next 20-30 years, wherever baseload demand jumps and nuclear
JW>power cannot, by political, economic, or time constraint, provide the
JW>additional supply.  Regardless of anyone's pet choice of electricity
JW>production, a discussion of fossil fuel's drawbacks, versus the next
JW>available alternative, is hardly moot.

Usually the argument about the safety of nuclear vrs. coal-fired
power plants boils down to how much radioactivity escapes into the
environment from these plants. This argument does not seem to occur
between the other technologies.

You are correct in saying that a great number of fossil-fueled plants
will be built in the near future since the DOE says that by the year
2000 the average age of coal-fired plants in the United States will be
38 years, gas-fired - 42 years, and that of oil-fired - 47 years. But it
is a near certainty that many of these plants will be replaced by wind,
solar and (most important) energy conservation, especially in California
where it is nearly impossible to build either a nuclear or a
fossil-fueled plant.

There are also a number of energetic programs to spread solar and wind
technologies to developing nations, some sponsored by DOE.

JW>[By the way, if you factor in material aquisition, etc., renewable
JW>sources don't necessarilty have lower safety estimates than higher
JW>density energy sources.  Two studies that bothered to do this are
JW>Inhaber (1982) and Holdre et al (1983).]

Which seems to make the question of safety even more moot.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . All wiyht.  Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:42:23 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Oct1.012522.9951@hsv3.lsil.com> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <54072@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>What I'd like to believe is that you are eventually going to generate
>>either the apology or the reference  that you owe me. Perhaps you've
>>forgotten your promise already? I may have the old posts on disk if you'd
>>like a reminder.
>
>No apology (except for my statement about containments being designed
>for an uncontained meltdown of the pressure vessel, which did turn out
>to be incorrect.)  Not being a professional student, I don't have
>access to a library which contains these journals that you pick bits
>out of.  I've checked the public libraries.


Typical. You state something which is false, then you post a series of
loud complaints about the stupidity, ignorance, and scientific illiteracy
of someone who points out that you are wrong, then when confronted with 
evidence you offer to look it up, and finally you make some plea for
mercy on the grounds of what a long trip it is to the library. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 27 Sep 1992 15:37:58 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep27.122308.29346@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Plus the snow in the north?
>
>Yes for two reasons. First, photovoltaic panels of today's design impose
>a roof loading of around 4 lb/sqft. That's well within the loadings 
>anticipated by the Code. Second, in the north, panels must be inclined
>at a steeper angle than in the south. That means that not much snow will
>*accumulate* on them.

Well, that's true.  Now, where exactly does the snow that falls on the roof
above the panels end up? What about the snow that slides off any but the lowest
row of panels, assuming you have more than one row?

 The Code requires 40 lb/sqft in the north to 
>accomodate snow loading on a *flat* roof. Since the collectors will be
>inclined at an angle of more than 40 degrees, the problem doesn't arise
>unless the panels are mounted to a flat roof where the snow that slides
>off of them still stays on the roof. Note that that's still the same
>amount of snow that would have fallen on the flat roof, only the excess
>4 lb of the collectors has to be carried.

But the loading's no longer even.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: --Early Turbine Still
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:58:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

PD>I stand by the comment.  Almost no new wind capacity was installed in
PD>the US over the last year.  I have read that only 55 MW, for US
PD>Windpower, of new construction is outstanding in the US.  This is to
PD>be compared to something like 1,700 MW installed in California.  There
PD>are new projects on the drawing boards, but it remains to be seen just
PD>how many will be funded.  Most of the US has a glut of capacity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be much construction
of new capacity of any type going on right now. According to "Electric
Power Monthly" Aug92, as of June 344.9 MW have been added and 65.2 MW
have been retired for a net 279.7 MW for the year. If that trend
continues, the 55 MW from wind seems more than respectable.

Wind power seems to be holding its own and is generating lots of new
interest. Seminars and conferences on the subject, particularly in the
mid-west, are consistently over subscribed.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
      
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.space
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: Porous Silicon
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:36:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

 Photodetectors will be more efficient at collection because they are
operated with an external bias, applying an internal electric field which
assists collection of the ehp dissociated by the incident photon, and 
which tends to sustain or increase the volume of the depletion region.
 Solar cells on the other hand work against themselves; the photocurrent
forward-biases the junction and tends to decrease the depletion volume
and the charge collection. 
-- 
##########################################################################
#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: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:13:13 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Sup
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: na
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <3235.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:

>Probably, Mr. Lovins biggest audience is the nuclear power industry
>itself. I had never heard of him until a few weeks ago when I purchased
>a copy of the "Alternative Energy Sourcebook" from Real Goods in which
>he wrote the foreword. His only mention of nuclear was that recently
>"renewables came to provide some 11-12% of the nation's total primary
>energy (about twice as much as nuclear power) and the fastest-growing
>part". Real fire brand talk.
>

There is a need for definitions here.  _Primary energy_ may not be what
we think it is.   _Renewables_ probably includes all
hydro energy.  If we add a sub-categories for electrical and
non-electrical, and then define what renewables contribute what, the
statement might not be so impressive.

A Partial Answer to My Own Question:  According to "Energy in a Finite
World" published by IIASA (1981), _primary energy_ is: 

  "the energy recovered from nature-water flowing over a dam, coal freshly
   mined, oil, natural gas, natural uranium.  Only rarely can primary energy
   be used to supply final energy - energy used to provide the consumer with
   energy services.  One of the few forms of primary energy that can be used
   as final energy is natural gas, which is why it is a fuel of preference
   whenever it is available.

   For the most part, primary energy is converted to secondary energy. 
   This is defined as an energy form that can be used . . . . ."

If this is an reasonable description of what Mr. Lovins meant by primary
energy (and it may not be), it seems to be a bit specialized and not
terribly relevant to the energy that we use.  Mr. Lovins has been known
to be a bit tricky with his terminology and fast with his numbers . . .
somewhat reminiscent of a President we had in the late 60's and early 70's.

What fraction of our secondary energy provided by:

  biomass (forest-mining, pollution, fertilizers, siltation ......
  solar (is incoming solar energy to heat the atmosphere, etc counted?
  wind (at last counting, a few tenths of a percent)
  geothermal ????? a renewable
  OTEC
  tidal
  waves and ocean currents
  hydro (does anyone, Mr. Lovins included have any rivers needing killing?)

My recollection is that it is modest.  BTW, the net energy produced by
biomass has to include all of the energy inputs into growing,
fertilizing, harvesting, transportation, generation, and distribution. 
May temper the enthusiasm a bit.

Without a clear description, caution is recommended.
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Dream Design? (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:46:11 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <19v7v4INNahj@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>Well, having a set of standard designs rather than every unit a custom design
>has been shown to allow better quality control in many other industries.  Seems
>like it ought to help in the nuclear power industry, too.

I'd like to ask a bit of indulgence here:  What would be your 'dream design'
for this purpose?  Would it be a LMFB or a HTGR or an 'inherently save LWR'
or what?

If the industry were given a mandate to come up with THE reactor design
(or maybe two, if there were a synergistic set where one bred and the
other generated, for example) for the next 50 years, what would it be?

I can't help but believe that it wouldn't be what we have today, but what
would it be?  Lets forget the past for a few minutes and look into the
future.  Show me that the future is one I can believe in!

-- 

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: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 30 Sep 92 07:06:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

JR>The NPR piece on "natural" problems with solar and wind energy was very
JR>interesting.  So were the pieces over the weekend that dealt with the
JR>"damage" Hurricane Andrew did to the Everglades and Louisiana bayous.

Some of us did not catch the NPR piece on the problems of wind and
solar energy. Please elucidate.

I'm still trying to locate the information about the maker of electric
cars in your area.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Press any key to continue or any other key to quit
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 26 Sep 1992 22:16:27 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <53961@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <19v8o3INNahj@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <53839@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>By your "reasoning" the risks involved in manufacturing 
>>>hydrogen bombs are equivalent to those involved in manufacturing 
>>>ice cream as one never knows when a tornado might send lethal fragments
>>>of ice cream flying through the air at high speeds. 
>>
>>No, Victor, it's YOUR reasoning (the way to compare risks is to compare
>>worst-case scenarios) that yields the above conclusion.
>
>This is a gross distortion of my actual argument.

Well, in that case, since it's what quite a few readers of this newsgroup
thought you were saying, how about clarifying your argument?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 29 Sep 1992 10:13:39 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep29.041546.4266@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <19vfieINNahj@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Sep23.104529.9909@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>=To reinforce this point, the Southern Building Code requires roofs
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>=to be designed to sustain 20 lb/sqft static load. In the North the
                                                     ****************
>>=Code requires 40 lb/sqft. Both are adequate to any reasonable solar
  *****************
>>=panel installation.
>>
>>Plus the snow in the north?
>                      ^^^^^
>
>I've declined to respond to several off-the-mark snipes by Carl, but
>I just could not let this one slide by.  

Couldn't even take the time to read the whole item, either, could you?

>No, not 'plus the snow in the north'.  The SOUTHERN building code
>applies in the SOUTH.  The NORTH has northern codes that rate
>things higher for the higher snow loads...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Arguments
Date: 27 Sep 1992 15:28:35 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1466300085@igc.apc.org>, Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:

*STRAW MAN ALERT*

>What I like, Howard, is how the technofixers are positive that
>nukes can be made perfectly safe,

Er, Tom, just WHOM have you heard claiming that nuclear power plants can be
made "perfectly safe."  Oh, certainly you've heard your fellow anti-nukes claim
that pro-nukes have made that claim.  But which pro-nuke has actually made that
claim?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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