HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:23:20 GMT

In article <51775@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

>> that the tension in the ring can be made arbitrarily small.  Their
>> scheme had a characterstic ring decay time of up to a month(!).

> That is good, but a month is probably longer than needed for power
> purposes.

For a ring used for diurnal load leveling, this corresponds
to a loss of a couple of percent, which is small but not entirely
negligible.

> Possibly, due to the limited angular velocity range, this
> wouldn't scale up to high enough speeds for really large power systems.

Sorry, I was not clear; the range of angular velocities for which the
stabilization scheme works is design dependent.  The tangential
velocity can be made arbitrarily high just by making the major radius
of the system larger.  For fixed centripetal acceleration, the mass
and cost of the ring (and levitation magnets) scales as R, while
energy stored scales as R^2 (there would also be power-related rather
than energy-related costs, which would dominate for large enough R.)


> Oh, well that is a little fast (rim velocity of 3060 kph) - maybe the
> tunnel could be under a little vacuum so that velocity is below sound
> speed.  Would magnetic confinement be affected by angular velocity alone
> or does rim velocity matter as well?  1000 MW-h seems reasonable to ask for
> such a large installation, but maybe it really is too much.

The ring would most definitely have to be in vacuum!  The designs they
looked at had ring speeds range from 1 to 10 km/s, with a radius of
around a kilometer.  The baseline stored energy is 5 GWh (enough to
load-level a 1 GW powerplant).

A competiting and very similar system is superconducting magnetic
energy storage (SMES).  This concept also uses bedrock to confine
outward forces.  The stored energy only scales as R log R, however, so
for very large systems the magnetically levitated ring could be
superior.  SMES itself is not currently competitive (and high
temperature superconductors wouldn't help much, even if they had good
enough J_c.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky sci.energy:6764 talk.environment:5403
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Date: 10 Jan 93 12:32:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1993Jan10.123206.21567
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1993Jan10.045540.14090@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:

> According to the California Public Utilities Commission, 
> a little over 1% of California's electricity is produced by wind turbines.
> These systems remained profitable even after the tax subsidy went away.

Excuse me?  They remain profitable to *operate* even without the ISO 4
contracts, (since the operating costs on the good ones are not very
high), but they haven't remained profitable to install, as witnessed
by the precipitous decline in new turbines.

Nuclear powerplants also have low operating cost (averaging about $.02/kWh
nationwide).  This figure is higher than the nuclear industry would like,
and is starting to decline after a decade of faster-than-inflation
growth.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: brioukha@mtb.und.ac.za (Dr Fedor Brioukhan)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Third world energy
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:18:13 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pcu35.mtb.und.ac.za

In article <=3tr4a-@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
>Subject: Third world energy
>Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 05:13:37 GMT
>howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
>
>
>>The mind set established by Nicola Tesla, George Westinghouse, and the
>>Rural Electification Administration, originally pushed by the coal
>>industry and now the nuclear crowd, is not necessarily valid when
>>applied to developing countries.
>
>The mindset has nothing to do with it.  Most of the third world will
>remain third world.  The theory that much of Africa and parts of 
>Asia will suddenly throw down their spear and clubs and put on suites
>and want to buy BMWs to drive to their highrise condos is just flat
>wistful thinking.  Solar, wind and other low technology, soft
>energy will do just fine there because their energy requirements
>will remain light.
>
>John
>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
>Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
>jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.






































































Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:41:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.154421.14928@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>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.
>
>

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.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:34:23 GMT

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?
>
>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

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.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Energy Weekly
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:57:11 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: howard.smith@spacebbs.com's message of 5 Jan 93 13:20:00 GMT

In article <5269.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:

   RS>This paragraph begs the question - what is the definition of "well-sited"?
   RS>Is it a site that generates 2,000 kWh/kW?  Just had to ask.

   "Well-sited" means a site that has enough wind to allow a wind turbine
   to produce its rated capacity for a high percentage of the time.

 There are some 8000+ hours in a year, saying that less than 20%
 is a "high percentage" is a use of the word "high" I had not hitherto
 encountered...
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:03:33 GMT

In article <7043@otc.otca.oz>, elson@otc.otca.oz.au (Elson Markwick) writes:
> know that a battery to do the same job would also be corrospondingly lighter, but 
> there are some disadvantages.  The two big ones I can come up with off the top of
> my head are limited number of discharge/recharge cycles, and the disposal
> problems once their working life is over.  My gut reaction (which may be wrong)

I could argue here that the batteries would be recycled, but even though
that is economically profitable, a large number of car batteries still end
up in the waste stream.  So this advantage would have to go to the flywheel.

Another advantage is the flywheel can be charged more quickly than the battery.
I'm not sure a battery system could be designed for regenerative braking
without additional storage solutions (such as capacitive storage that then
charges the batteries more slowly).  This could lead to inefficient
regenerative braking recovery.  The flywheel might not have this limitation.
The flywheel undoubtedly can provide better acceleration than the battery,
and that is one of the current uses of flywheels - rapid discharge.

> The other problem (about the gyro effects of a flywheel) could be negated by
> mounting a single wheel with a vertical axis of rotation (ie the wheel spins in 
> the horizontal plane).  Then you only get a gyro effect when you attempt to
> change the pitch of the vehicle.  The only major changes in vehicle pitch would
> be up or down hills, and I'm sure flexible mounts could easily take care of that.

True - I would still suggest mounting two with opposite spin in the flat
configuration.  This way, there is no net torque on the vehicle during
charging or discharging.  As opposed to vertical mounts, pitch and tilt
in the vehicle are never more than a few degrees (unless the vehicle is
having an accident), and always return to 0.  A flexible mount could easily
account for this.  Since the most efficient flywheel design is a ring (no
spokes) I could imagine two fat rings stacked on top of each other - and
put the vehicle's spare tire in the middle.  And if made flat enough,
the driver could sit well above them, and thus be less likely to be injured in
the event of failure.  Q losses would be unimportant since the power is
used almost immediately after it is stored.  The only major loss is in the
magnetic suspension.

I wonder what the implication of all these big magnetic fields (for
regenerative braking and for charging, discharging and suspending the
flywheel) running around our highways is.


--
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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:07:13 GMT

In article <51738@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>
>Depends on your definition of harvestable.  How about a reference describing
>this for us?  Does it include giving plenty of clearance for roadways,
>right-of-ways, towns and residences?  How about sensitive habitat, were
>wetlands, forests, riparian environments, etc. eliminated from consideration?
>How about conflict between agricultural uses and the wind farms?

All of these factors have been taken into consideration.  Wind farms
work well in conjunction with agricultural land.  Storage and
long distance transmission are the problems to wind energy becoming
dominant.  With current technology it could probably supply 10-20%
of US electricity needs. The upper midwest has the best supplies - 
actually far more than current electricity needs - its just too far from
the consumption.  Based on previous discussions, it would seem that
flywheels might be a good form of storage sometime soon. 

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
current capacity, was not a highly favorable location.  Current
costs for such generation are almost as cheap as coal generation.
>
>--
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>stead@seismo.css.gov


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.math.num-analysis
From:  PODNOS@tor.spb.su (Vladimir Podnos)
Subject: Request of standard benchmarks for FEM software
Summary: Request of standard benchmarks for FEM software
Keywords: FEM, Field Modelling, CAD
Reply-To: PODNOS@tor.spb.su
Organization: Cooperative Enterprise Tor
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:21:33 GMT

We developed  a Finite  Element Modelling  system, and  very
interested in  comparing it  to other analogous programs. Of
course, having  a standard  set of  benchmark will  be  very
useful. Are  there any  standard tests  for  such  kinds  of
problems? How to obtain them?

Our  software   is  oriented   to   the   solution   of   2D
Electromagnetic, Thermal and Stress Analysis problems.

If you know something about benchmarks in these fields (non-
linear are of special interest), please, let me know.

I  promise  to  write  a  summary  (if  I'll  get  something
interesting...)

Sincerely,

          Vladimir
--
Vladimir Podnos           Internet e-mail: podnos@tor.spb.su         
TOR Co-op Enterprise: phone (812)292-1965, fax (812) 110-1334   
6 Uglovoj per, 198052 St.Petersburg, RUSSIA          



Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:02:41 GMT

In article <m0wrqwh@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph) writes:
>
>>I have been reading this thread with some interest.  I  have seen only once, a
>>mention of what appears to be san overwhelmingly obvious trueism:
>> 
>>    between fossile fuels and nuclear power only nuclear power is CO2 free
>
>I will not use the CO2/greenhouse strawman even though it would help
>my case because I consider the whole issue to be at best, based on ignorance
>and at worst, based on intellectual fraud.

And what does this indicate about John De Armond's attitude about
science?
>
>John
>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
>Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
>jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: hot water
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:36:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.162700.20141@slustl.slu.edu> guy@slustl.slu.edu (Guy Smith) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.011650.7437@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec24.193301.7343@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>>In article <BzqvCI.KL2@world.std.com> moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>>>
>>>Could not a similar system (with an 'overheat shutoff interlock' on
>>>the burner!) be put on water heaters?  
>>
>>You have to interlock the damper to the burner. You can't allow
>>combustion products to accumulate in the structure unless you want
>>to kill the occupants. At times the burner isn't operating, assume
>>electric ignition, then the damper should be closed.
>
>We had a similar arrangement on our gas fired boiler. For complicated
>reasons, we replaced it with a passive system that didn't require
>an interlock but the guy who did the work told us that that they
>had seen a lot of problems with such systems. They should work in
>principle but the engineering may not be up to the task yet.

Failsafe ignition interlocks are included on *every* home gas furnace.
It's really very basic technology.

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
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:44:38 GMT

stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>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?

You don't need "complete destruction", just structural damage. Seriously
now, if any part of the containment structure at Turkey Point had sustained
structural damage, do you really think the plant would have ever gone
back online? Consider not only the repair costs, but the PR requirements
and their costs.

>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.

Sorry, wrong. The USAF had a number of buildings on the base that _were_
designated as "hurricane-proof". I saw an interview with a pilot that
rode out the storm in one of them, and he was alive only because he sought
refuge in one of the few areas of that building that wasn't breached by
the winds. If you recall seeing photos of an F-16 minus its nose from the
cockpit forward, that plane and its companion were both in "hurricane-
proof" hangars. These were not shacks.

I do not know how USAF "hurricane-proof" specs compare with NRC "hurricane-
proof" specs, but I doubt they vary by a factor of two or three. I'll
repeat what I said: FPL was very lucky to escape Andrew with as little
damage to Turkey point as they sustained.


William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com

"We trained hard,  but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;  and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization."	-Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:01:56 GMT

Thank you, John, for the excellent explantion.

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:

  <explantion deleted for brevity. if you missed it, go back and read it.
   it is worth your time.>


>The siren system is NOT a part of the plant other than there is a trip
>button on the control panel.

This is definitely NOT the impression given by news reports.

>>So why should I believe Turkey Point is that much better designed than
>>Homestead AFB?

>Because we tell you it is.

But you admittedly have no more experience or knowledge of USAF specs than
I have of either. I'm sure the AF felt just as good about the integrity of
their hangars as you do about the integrity of a nuke plant. Frankly, I
don't think anyone has the necessary experience weathering hurricanes to
fell confident in their assumptions about what will happen in one.


William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com

"We trained hard,  but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;  and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization."	-Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC