HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:12:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.221336.3232@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
:> This is God Awful long, and mostly just rebuts Richards points, but
:> I've tried to make it entertaining along the way... Give it a try
:> before you give up and hit 'n' ...
:> 
:> >> >If you take a small producer, for example, incentives and long term
:> >> >reductions in energy costs may not offset his cost to convert, particularly
:> >> >if downtime during conversion is included.  
:> >> 
:> >> There will be a full spectrum of players with the full range of
:> >> marginal costs.  By definition, most of them will be near the 
:> >> mean difficulty to converst and your example of a small producer
:> >
:> >Why?  How can you say this is by definition?  
:> 
:> Yes, it is true, the middle is the middle by definition.

You recommend to "Give it a try".  I just did.  You were dishonest right at
the start here by selectively quoting my challenge and distorting the question
and then ridiculing me in the answer to your distortion.  Time to hit 'n',
and consider adding you to a kill file.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mancus@zaphod.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus/MDSSC)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:24:24 GMT

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:
>>1000% of next-to-nothing is still not much.  

>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.

  How much money do you want to spend developing a technology that
can never supply the needs of the country outside the upper midwest?
Clearly this has nothing to do with the nuclear vs coal debate.

  -Keith
-- 
| Keith Mancus    <mancus@cheers.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
|                 N5WVR                                                  |
| "Money is never *mere*.  It separates the feasible                     |
|    from the infeasible."                                               |
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:19:49 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan11.011553.10954@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:

|Why not convert the transportation industry from 18 wheelers to bicycles?

Don't scoff.  There are a number of people out there who think this would
be a good idea.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: robk@gumby.Altos.COM (Rob Kleinschmidt)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:03:40 GMT
Reply-To: robk@altos.COM (Rob Kleinschmidt)
Organization: Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA

In article <51769@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

>               Therefore, in shredding a flywheel to "fluff" you have only
>broken a minute percentage of its bonds.  Since the computations show that
>the total energy stored in the most efficient, lowest stress flywheel
>design must be less than half the total bond energy - any higher energy
>densities will simply cause the atoms to fly apart.

I seem to recall that in earlier flywheel experiments, the failure
occurred first in the resin bonding material, rather than in the
fibers, and that the fibers might actually be intact but unglued
after the failure. Would this not be true with materials used in
the present design ? If true, how might this affect your failure
analysis ?

My vague memory is that the fiber was described as pehaps unwound
in the containment chamber with all resin bonds separated. Seems
as though winding techniques would strongly influence failure modes,
and that it is unlikely the whole thing would disintegrate instantly.
Instead of killer fluff, perhaps we have the weedwhacker from hell ??

>
>--
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>stead@seismo.css.gov


R. Kleinschmidt
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: guy@slustl.slu.edu (Guy Smith)
Subject: Re: hot water
Organization: Saint Louis University  Saint Louis, MO
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:27:00 GMT

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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: engp2176@nusunix1.nus.sg (JEROME HANSABHAYA ELLEPOLA)
Subject: Fog Machines
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:40:49 GMT

I would like to consult the collective
wisdom of this group, ( sci.energy ) on
smoke machines.

I am using a fog mechine, to visualise
the flow in a channel at low reynolds numbers,
The machine is a D-5050 Kupu fog machine.

The hich is that the Fog oil ( supplied with 
the machine is denser than air and tends to 
sedimentate on the bed of the channel.  :(

If any of the readers have had such problems
and figured out a better oil etc,
pls let me know asap.

thanks in advance
happy 1993

regards

Jerome
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com))
Subject: Re: Domestic Hot Water Heaters - oil vs. electric
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 06:11:33 GMT

E. Michael Smith (ems@michael.apple.com) wrote:
: 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:
: >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 ...

I seem to recall that all water, from an underground source, will be at
about the same temperature no matter what the surface temp is, 59F is
what I recall.  That's why the bottom of my barn is 20 degrees nicer than
the outside in the winter & summer, the earth acts as a nice heat-sink/source.

SO, to further pick those nits which have been excessively picked already,
..

Aw...whatever.  Who really cares?

--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
Ask me if I have an opinion on this! \ Don't blame me; I voted for Perot!
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.     \       Pherrets are Phun!!!
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 06:29:53 GMT

Arguments aside, the latest Popular Science had an article
on a start-up company that has designed what they contend to be a 
workable flywheel battery.

It is made of a Kevlar strap(=> high strength, low cost) rolled up like 
a roll of toilet paper. Each flywheel occupies a box about the 
size of a conventional battery, and they claim 12 (set counter rotating
to negate the angular momentum) will give up to 
a 600 mile range, as well as good acceleration. As for safety, 
they contend that the failure mode of the kevlar belt results in
something like cotton candy, so the energy is very disbursed---no
shrapnel as with metal flywheels. Also, having the energy distributed
among 12 flywheels reduces the possibility if a high energy excursion
failure.

So far, they have done most of the design on computer, but
are working on a prototype flywheel for next year. They contend
they could have a practical battery within two years.


 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Energy Weekly
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:00:58 GMT

In article <5240.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
> European wind turbines will, for the first time, exceed 1 billion
> kWh (1 TWh) in electric power output in 1992.
> 
> Worldwide wind generation will likely reach 4.3 billion kWh in
> 1992. California, which due to poor winds is not expected to
> produce more than the 2.7 billion kWh recorded last year, will
> account for about 67% of total world production.

Shows the sorry state of world-wide wind development, since the world total
does not approach the output of a single nuke over 1 year.

--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Richard has a gripe (was Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change)
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:27:10
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1993Jan7.221336.3232@michael.apple.com> <51792@seismo.CSS.GOV>
	<1993Jan11.221055.12931@michael.apple.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: ems@michael.apple.com's message of 11 Jan 93 22:10:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.221055.12931@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

   I can say it is by definition since I see it as a question of looking
   at a large sample space (ALL the economy) and looking for the (mean/
   modal point).  You see it as being some issue of pre-defining 'mean'
   as 'profitably and easily converted'.  That is your problem, not mine.
   When you ask me to clarify MY position, please do not pre-suppose 
   that I must do so in the context of YOUR pre-conceptions of it.

Not adequate: consider this postulated distribution of costs vs
frequency for energy sources in the community.


     f
	|
	|
	| 				*
	|			       *
	|*			      *
	| *			     *
	|  *			    *
	|   *			   *
	|    *			  *
	|	*		*
	|	  *	      *
	|	    * *	    *
	|		***
	|
	|____________________________________ $$$

Neither the mean nor the mode have the properties you desire,
and I contend this is a not unreasonable model of reality...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Help save the youth of America				*
*  Help save them from themselves   				*
*  Help save the sun-tanned surfer boys				*
*  And the California Girls					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:00:24 GMT

In article <C0Hw54.BDB@encore.com>, wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
> 
> 
> It was stupid to locate a plant where it could take the leading edge of a
> hurricane, and FPL was lucky to get through it as well as they did.
> 
> 
> William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com
> 
> 

Then think about this one, William:  if it stupid to build a nuclear power
plant that is designed to survive a huricane without causing damage to the
core and without releasing radioactivity, why is it *not* stupid for people to
build and live in an area where they are guarenteed to take the leading edge
of a hurricane?

Since there is a large population in southern Florida, you included, there
must be a near-by power plant.  I would hope that you will admit that Turkey
Point withstood the huricane much, much better than the fossil-fuel plant
next to it.  Given that, the large population, utilities have to either build 
a fossil or a nuclear power plant for their base load, and the nuclear power
plant is built better than a fossil-fueled plant when it comes to surviving
storm damage, I would think that most people would rather have the nuclear
plant that could be back on line within 2 days or 2 weeks (depending on the
condition of the electrical grid).

If you are not one, so be it.  However, I do have a hard time understanding
your logic on this one issue.  I think I understand it, but I clearly do not
agree with it and I think you are overlooking the logic I have stated above.

I would hope you understand my statements above and see the point I am making.
So, give it some thought and I look forward on hearing your thoughts on my 
points.

Don Palmrose

P.S. I like your quote from Petronius Arbiter.




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:22:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.000347.26915@kpc.com>, kevinc@solman.kpc.com (Kevin Cameron) writes:
> What I would be more concerned with would be the effect of a flywheel failure.
> Imagine that we can build a sheild strong enough to fully contain the fragments.
> I don't have time to calculate it but it seems that the resulting transfer
> of angular momentum into the car in a very short period of time may be enough
> to flip it!  Maybe several times.  This wouldn't be pretty.  Especially if
> the car is moving.

Not necessarily, if the flywheel is storing solely regenerative braking
power.  That's not a whole lot of power, and for a horizontal flywheel,
failure might induce a spin, but probably not a flip.  Dangerous (in the
event of sudden internal failure not due to outside causes), but perhaps
no more dangerous than something like a blowout.  This is much more
difficult to dismiss than the 100% flywheel car.  Perhaps this can be
countered by using a lot (100?) smaller flywheels.  Braking a car
from 50 mph to zero represents only about 250 kJ.  Assuming that only
50% or so is recoverable, that would be 125 kJ.  Split it up among
100 flywheels, that's a little more than a kJ per flywheel.  That's
really not much power to spin the car.  So I could see this application,
in particular since the flywheel can likely charge faster, thus recover
more energy from regenerative braking than batteries.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: daryl@bovill.auspex.com (Daryl Starr)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:34:55 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems

Sorry about that last post. It went out accidentally. I`ll post the
real response later.

Daryl
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:39:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.032556.3692@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
> (1) energy density of gasoline

Model gas as hexane (close enough):
heat of combustion 995 kCal/mole
molar mass 86 g
gives 11570 kCal/kg

Popular Science article claimed a 600 mile range - with assumptions of more
efficient energy conversion and lighter and more aerodynamic car, I used
8 kg gas as the equivalent energy supply (comes out to a bit more than 2
gallons).

> (2) tensile strength of carbon fiber

Posted as up to 1 Mpsi.  Theoretical limit based on C-C bond strength and
density of graphit gives about 11 Mpsi.

> (1.1) efficiency of converting gasoline energy to mechanical energy
> in a internal combustion engine

30% is reasonable.

> (2.1) hypothetical efficiecny of converting flywheel energy 
> to mechanical energy in electric motor set-up.

Unknown - no such setup exists.  Assume 100%.  (That is what the thread has
assumed).

> As for dangerous fluff balls: fluff ball => much of stored energy went 
> into destroying the substrate material. Hopefully little of the store actually
> gets released as kinetic energy of the debris.

The energy does not disappear.  When you snap a bond, it takes energy to
snap it, but then the atoms recoil, converting that energy to heat.  So the
energy expended in breaking the material up is converted to heat in this
mode of failure.  Also, a simple computation will show that the number of
bonds broken, even if the final particles are "fluff", is very small compared
to the total number of bonds in the material.  This is because in terms of
number of bonds, the volume of any visible object is much larger than its
surface area.  Therefore, in shredding a flywheel to "fluff" you have only
broken a minute percentage of its bonds.  Since the computations show that
the total energy stored in the most efficient, lowest stress flywheel
design must be less than half the total bond energy - any higher energy
densities will simply cause the atoms to fly apart.

As more evidence that fluff is dangerous - a very high wind (200 mph)
can pick up a blade of grass and drive it deep into a piece of wood.  This
is nothing compared to the speeds and energies we're talking about in the
flywheels.

As a review of some results - the energy needed to be stored is in the
vicinity of 400 MJ.  The minimum mass rotor that could store this without
instantly failing based on atomic bond strength is 50 kg.  Based on
actual material strength is 500 kg.  The 400 MJ could vaporize 40kg of iron,
or melt more than twice that.  The stresses and speeds involved imply
failure times on the order of microseconds to milliseconds.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: rhillier@random.ucs.mun.ca (Rex Hillier)
Subject: waste to energy
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: $
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:30:18 GMT

Recently a proposal has been put forward to process American garbage at a plant at Long Harbour, Nf. Canada.  Obviously this has created a great deal of controversy.  What are your experiences and information with this type of project?
Is waste to energy efficient?  Is it safe?  What about emissions and disposal of ash products.

	Thanks
	Rex
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Avg. US home energy bill
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:36:29 GMT

In <1993Jan6.221245.23589@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Chris Katopis) writes:

>Can anyone tell me what the "average" cost of the US's 	
>homeowner/apt renter energy bill - elect, gas, oil is??	

In 1987, the average energy consumption was 101 million
BTU/household at an average cost of $10.71 per million BTU,
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

For more details and answers to your other questions, your
library ought to have a copy of the Statistical Abstract of the
United States.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: Flywheel as Mountain Bike energy storage medium
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:27:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.045852.4476@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E.  
Michael Smith) writes:
> An easier trial:  Fill the tire with water. ...
>  After a couple of cycles
> to bleed the trapped air out, I had tires that didn't go flat (the 
> theory that higher viscosity would 'solve'the slow leak was confirmed
> to be correct.)
> 

The viscocity of air is _higher_ than that of water. But the water
does have more mass, of course.

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:36:54 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

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?


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Electric Car Conversion Kits
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 00:25:46 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

The engine on our '81 Honda accord is about to die
and I was wondering if anyone knew of a source of
a kit to convert it to electric.

Is there any reference which compiles a list
of manufacturers of electric car conversions for
various makes and models of used cars?

Even if you don't know of any source for such a conversion
kit I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the
potential of such a conversion.  I think the Honda Accord
of about that year would be an ideal target for such a 
conversion since it is a very good car which sold very
well and as a group probably has many members which are
getting close to needing engine rebuilds.

Thanks,

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem