HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:52:20 GMT

In article <51751@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.220713.8624@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>> work well in conjunction with agricultural land.  Storage and
>
>I'm still a bit hesitant here - it should work well on large ranches
>raising animals (as long as it didn't stress the animals too much),
>but raising crops in somewhat arid regions (most of the high plains)
>requires irrigation.  In the high plains, this is typically done with
>above-ground apparatus that moves around and sprinkles the ground.  There
>are various types, but they are all very long and must be able to sweep
>across acres of land unimpeded.  The wind turbines could then only be
>at the perimeters of the fields.

I was under the impression that a lot of agriculture in the high plains
did not use a lot of irrigation - as in California, for instance.  If
I am wrong, then they might need to avoid such farms, but since they
aren't depending on mountain passes I don't think that location
would be very critical.  The experience in California is that
agricultural land value increased noticably in windy areas and, of
course, the farmers get to collect some rent.
>
>> Based on previous discussions, it would seem that
>> flywheels might be a good form of storage sometime soon. 
>
>No, the forgoing discussion showed flywheels are not a good technology
>for this.  Flywheels are good in stationary applications (using very large
>wheels) for either 1) short-term very high power needs or 2) very short
>uninterruptible power.  The best storage technology for power engineering
>is pumped storage.  Water is pumped into an elevated reservoir, then run
>back through turbines when power is needed.  This is very useful for
>avoiding brownouts, but I don't know how it would work for baseload.
>
The discussion on flywheels focused on mobile ones, but I certainly
didn't read every post on the subject!  I don't know how applicable
pumped storage would be in the plains where there isn't much of
anything that is elevated.  I think storage is the biggest
limitation to the use of renewables but considering their
extremely low penetration currently, it isn't a limiting factor
now.  From what I have read, storage and transmission problems
won't be a factor until solar and wind reach somewhere around
20% penetration.  Of course, there are still cost limitations
for solar - for now.
>
>--
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>stead@seismo.css.gov


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 22:58:25 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan12.184145.6821@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.154421.14928@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan4.220713.8624@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>>>I have seen studies showing wind resources as contour maps with the
>>>>>contours indicating percentage of local electricity energy
>>>>>available in wind form.  Much of the high plains was at 1000% so it
>>>>>has plenty to export.  

>>i.e., if you don't care about environmental impacts, wildlife, etc.
>>
>>
>
>I do and these effects are being studied.  The two alleged impacts that
>I am aware of are bird kills and aesthetic impacts.  The bird kill
>issue seems to be very localized - only some birds have problems.
>The aesthetics will need to be dealt with on an individual basis, also.
>Others have discussed other possible impacts when a large amount of
>energy is pulled from wind: it could affect the weather.  There is no
>where near enough capacity at this point to affect weather, so there
>is still time to study this.

Land-use, wiring, tranmission, noise, etc.

Whose land?  Wildlife habitat?  etc, etc, etc?

Localized bird kills, of course; but how many and what type.  The
variability of bird populations at various times and locations make many
of the "preliminary" studies questionable.  The construction and
operation of enough windmills to supply _significant_, i.e. 5-10% of the
nation's electricity, could kill a lot of birds.

Free lunches are the new mirages of the world.  

May many mixed metaphors mangle myriad minds!

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:09:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.223423.1626@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.184520.19495@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.220133.1959@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>Obviously we are not talking about wishful thinking, but methods that
>>>are tried and proven successsful in one of the largest urban areas in
>>>the U.S.
>>
>>Yes, and it's an area that now has a net out migration of population for
>>the first time in it's history, a net decline in jobs, and the lowest
>>economic growth of any region in the US. Related?
>
>I don't think they are related.  I have not heard of any problems relating to
>energy supply, although I have heard, and know of, a lot of other problems.
>If you think they are related, please describe how it is so.

Obviously this is speculation, but California is notorious for leading
in environmental regulation in the US. I'm postulating that these 
regulations have begun to have serious economic effects in California.
I'm aware that there are *other* factors at play, such as the aerospace
cutbacks from declining defense expenditures, and a large non-productive
population, but I suspect that the "greening" of California is finally 
beginning to take it's toll on the productive sector. Businesses are
moving out whatever the reason.

On a possibly related note, economists are now projecting that 1993
will only see two G7 countries with positive economic growth rates,
and they are the top two per capita energy consumers.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:44:21 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan11.222018.28813@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.213932.12271@apgea.army.mil> jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil (Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.220713.8624@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>I have seen studies showing wind resources as contour maps with the
>>>contours indicating percentage of local electricity energy
>>>available in wind form.  Much of the high plains was at 1000% so it
>>>has plenty to export.  By comparison California, with most of the
>>>
>>1000% of next-to-nothing is still not much.  
>>
>>J. Matthews
>
>Its still not a trivial amount.  We aren't just talking about North
>Dakota here.  It may not be enough to supply the eastern seaboard, but
>it could make a big dent in consumption in the upper midwest, which is
>close enough to overcome transmission problems.

i.e., if you don't care about environmental impacts, wildlife, etc.
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:23:05 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <1992Dec26.173449.15241@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Any claim for a practical vehicle that gets over 50 MPG equivalent
>over a 600 mile run, gas, electric, flywheel, whatever, should be 
>scrutinized with great care.
...
>In the 1970s, Mercedes built a diesel streamliner with a 0.40 cubic
>inch engine that claimed a closed course record of 1053 MPG at an
>average speed of 12 MPH and a total distance travelled of 8.8 miles.
>I think they intended to go further, but something broke off when they
>hit a bump.

Mercedes also built a highly streamlined 200 mph or so diesel that got
on the order of 25 mpg AT THAT SPEED (!).  And VW has built something
about like a streamlined Rabbit that got about 100 mpg (and is intended
to represent a production type car.  I.e. practical.).  The only snag
was that it had to use some kind of iron catalyst in the diesel fuel
to meet smog requirements and persueding the world to put catalysts 
in all their diesel fuel was a bit, er, problematic...)

These two vehicles indicate that it is possible to get a 100 mpg car
at 55 mph.  Going beyond that, however, would be very hard...

So scrutnize in the 50-100 mpg range, and get skeptical at 100 mpg+ claims.

-- 

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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: bainbridge@stpaul.ncr.com (Robert Bainbridge)
Subject: Heat loss software
Summary: Looking for PC based heat loss software
Organization: Architecture
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:24:25 GMT

This may be the incorrect group to post this inquiry; if so,
please excuse me.

My son-in-law is involved with HVAC installation and is
trying to locate PC based software that will perform heat
loss calculations for residential and light commercial
applications.  Any information on a source of this type
of software would be helpful.

Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: rstenson@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Ronald Ernest Stenson)
Subject: Nuclear waste management INFO?
Organization: Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:35:07 GMT

I am currently reviewing both the policy and physical science of nuclear
waste disposal.  This includes both low level and high level waste.  If
anyone has any suggestions on key summaries of historic information please
e-mail them to me or post.  I would be interested in bibliographies from
recent papers or information pointing to an archive site with information.

I will post a summary of any information I receive.

Thank you in advance.

rstenson@spartan.ac.brocku.ca
department of geography
university of waterloo
waterloo ON N2L 3G1
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:38:03 GMT

In article <C0E7uB.M9y@encore.com>, wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
[discussion of content of news articles deleted]
> The evacuation concerns centered on the inoperative alarm sirens, which had
> died early in the night. It wasn't a matter of evacuating people through
> the debris, it was a matter of letting them know they needed to evacuate.
> 
> And even though it survived the storm relatively intact, I still think was
> and is incredibly stupid to put a facility like that on the oceanfront in
> a high-risk hurricane area. If you saw the damage the storm did to the
> "hurricane-proof" buildings at Homestead AFB, you would realize that FPL
> was VERY lucky.

Well everything was fine until this last statement.  How can the damage to
some sirens (I have never seen a siren designed to survive the brunt of
a hurricane) be extrapolated to a near-miss on the complete destruction
of a nuke?  And there was no claim of "hurricane-proof" for the buildings
at Hoemstead - most would have been designated "temporary" structures which
had been standing long past their expected lifespans.  They weren't concrete,
they didn't even have serious foundations.   Shacks is more like it.
Those buildings are about as far from a reactor containment structure as you
can get.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:09:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.225825.6746@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.184145.6821@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan12.154421.14928@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan4.220713.8624@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>>>>I have seen studies showing wind resources as contour maps with the
>>>>>>contours indicating percentage of local electricity energy
>>>>>>available in wind form.  Much of the high plains was at 1000% so it
>>>>>>has plenty to export.  
>
>>>i.e., if you don't care about environmental impacts, wildlife, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I do and these effects are being studied.  The two alleged impacts that
>>I am aware of are bird kills and aesthetic impacts.  The bird kill
>>issue seems to be very localized - only some birds have problems.
>>The aesthetics will need to be dealt with on an individual basis, also.
>>Others have discussed other possible impacts when a large amount of
>>energy is pulled from wind: it could affect the weather.  There is no
>>where near enough capacity at this point to affect weather, so there
>>is still time to study this.
>
>Land-use, wiring, tranmission, noise, etc.
>
>Whose land?  Wildlife habitat?  etc, etc, etc?
>
>Localized bird kills, of course; but how many and what type.  The
>variability of bird populations at various times and locations make many
>of the "preliminary" studies questionable.  The construction and
>operation of enough windmills to supply _significant_, i.e. 5-10% of the
>nation's electricity, could kill a lot of birds.
>
>Free lunches are the new mirages of the world.  
>
>May many mixed metaphors mangle myriad minds!
>

Well, I don't think I claimed it was a free lunch - maybe a cheaper one:)
I don't want to dismiss the bird kill problem by saying it is localized.
Since the kills are usually raptors, the issue is real, but maybe only
for certain areas.  Another post discussed the land-use issues: agri-
cultural land works fairly well, so wild habitat areas may not be
needed.  As I said, I am not dismissing these issues, but they do not
seem to be unsolvable and since we are a very long way from the 15% of
capacity, most of them do not need to be solved immediately.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Domestic Hot Water Heaters - oil vs. electric
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:04:40 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

Just to harvest even smaller nits from the nits already harvested ...

In article <28145@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:
>In article <BzoMuq.F7z@world.std.com>, moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
>writes:
>|> dbliss@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Doug Bliss) writes:
>|> 
>|> >I have heard that oil-fired domestic hot water heaters...
>|> First, my home heating system is essentially a oil-fired hot water heater...

>Several years ago, someone pointed out to me that these devices are
>actually _cold_ water heaters, not _hot_ water heaters, as if the
>water was already hot, you wouldn't need to heat it, would you?
>Alternatively, they can be just "water heaters".

Ponder the person living in Phoenix, Arizona in August ... for them
the water isn't _cold_ to begin with ... I was always told that they
were _domestic_ water heaters ...  They heat water, be it cold, warm,
or hot-but-not-quite-hot-enough ...

>Now, next time someone tells you about a "hot water heater",
>you too can sound clever (or excessively picky)!   :)

No no, not excessively picky, excessively precise!  Get it right, man! ;-)

-- 

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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: True Costs of French Commercial Nuclear Power 
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 06:41:08 GMT

In article <58508@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <schumach.726537198@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>Our grandchildren will hate us for not retiring carbon fueled
>>power plants as fast as possible. The only feasible alternative
>>is nuclear, as the French, Japanese and Koreans understand and as
>>their extensive experience demonstrates. We owe it to the Earth,
>
>Got a reference to back this up? The French have a working nuclear industry,
>but the costs, economic and environmental are not obvious. For example,
>how much money have the french sunk into their non-functioning breeder
>reactors? Are there leaks at the Cape Breton reprocessing plant? 
>How can you judge the sucess of the French nuclear industry without
>knowing these?

Yes, I do, and here's some facts:

Currently, 75% of the electricity generation in France is nuclear with 56
active reactors.

In 1991, France (or EdF, the company that runs the show) EXPORTED 53.4 TWh
of electricity, a 17% gain from 1990, for a turnover of 12 billion francs.
Because of this, EdF was the seventh largest French exporter in 1990, and
has probably moved up even higher. Their three largest consumers were the
UK, Italy, and Switzerland. [Tino's note: Italy is paying through the nose
for shutting down its plants] Germany has also begun to import large 
amounts of electricity (5.5 TWh in 1991).

They have a program called the "ten yearly shut-down", where modifications
and heavy maintenance is performed in accordance to French regulations.

Between 1992 and 1998, 7 more plants are to be started up. Their goal is at
least one reactor a year, to increase their energy independence. Their
substitution of nuclear power for oil is now fully complete.

A law concerning research on long-life radioactive waste management was
promulgated on 30 December 1991.

(source: "Le programme electronucleaire francais au 1er janvier 1992" by
the Commissariat d'Energie Atomique)

After putting a lot of money into the nuclear program, it looks like they
are starting to bring in some cash. Their average reactor is only 10 years
old, so their profits will probably be increasing at a pretty good rate.

Having worked at a CEA research facility last year, I will gladly 
entertain any of your other questions, Victor, to the best of my knowledge.
Rumors of "leaks at a reprocessing plant" are out of my domain, unless I
can track down a source for the info.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: hot water
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:17:25 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan9.184113.19397@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <Jan08.212740.70825@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu writes:
|> >Nice idea but building codes are very conservative.  As far
|> >as I am aware you can't have any flow restrictors at all simply
|> >because, as you mention, if they malfunctioned people might die.
|> >
|> >If anyone knows of any building codes that do in fact allow this
|> >I would be interested in hearing.
|> 
|> The codes allow dampers for *inlet* air, my furnace has one. It
|> doesn't matter from the energy efficiency standpoint whether the
|> damper is in the inlet or the exhaust. All that matters is that
|> the flow stops. With the damper in the inlet, the system is
|> passively safe. If the damper fails to open, the flame is smothered.
|> Then the *other* interlock that every code requires, the one that
|> shuts off the gas, takes over. Since that one is *not* passively
|> safe, but is *required*, disallowing interlocked exhaust dampers
|> is particularly stupid.
|> 

This matches with my understanding too.  The only *outlet*
flow device I am aware of has a name which has "vortex" in it.
(I can't remember the full name)
It seems to get around the code in that it doesn't mechanically
restrict the flow.  It is something of a constant flow device in
that the faster the flow the more the restriction.  It doesn't 
help at all in preventing warm air from escaping up the flue when
the flame is not burning, but it helps maintain optimum combustion
efficiency under varying stack pressure.  I don't see that it is
inherently more effective than an *inlet* side damper, but the
concept is rather elegant, even though it appears to be over priced
for most people who would use it.

The only reason I can think of that exhaust dampers might be particularly
dangerous is because of inherently leaky air supply and exhaust systems.
If the exhaust damper closed but didn't extinguish the flame and the
CO from the flame instead went into the house problems would occur.
That might be what is behind the code.

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Mileage vs. Safety concerns in autos
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:51:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.204533.1499@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> scallan@cleburne.jsc.nasa.gov (-BJS-) writes:
>
>   This discussion of alternative power plants / fuels / designs for automobiles
>has reminded me of a project which was taking place (I believe) in Australia with
>modest financial backing from Ford & Toyota.  A small group of brains and wrench
>heads were developing a 2-cycle engine for use in a car.  The advantages being
>claimed were increased mileage, lighter powerplant, increased power bands and
>cleaner combustion.  Unfortunately, there were several problems for which
>solutions were still being worked; higher temperatures than conventional engines,
>an imperfect valve system plus additional minor issues.  The current devices
>which utilize 2-cycle engines (dirt bikes, chain saws, r/c motors) have gained
>justifiable reputations for being temperamental.  But these devices are
>implementations that allow these deficiencies to be overlooked / tolerated and
>further R&D related to improving these designs is virtually non-existent. 
>Perhaps the state-of-the-art has advanced enough to allow improvements which
>expand the applications for a 2-cycle motor.

Two cycle engines have long been used in vehicles. The big Detroit Diesels
in 18 wheelers are 2 cycle with blower scavenging. Very efficient. And there's
the little 3 cylinder Suzuki sold in the Japanese home market, and the
Treblat (sp) made in the former East Germany (very dirty but very cheap).
Two cycle engines work best with heavy supercharging to scavenge the chamber
efficiently. That in turn means very high octane gas, or diesel.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu