HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Date: 2 Jan 93 09:23:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

TI>When developing countries begin to industrialize, their electricity needs
TI>will quickly outgrow what is available with solar and wind technology.
TI>What then? Large units for baseload power, accented with smaller scale
TI>generation for peak loads, etc.

You are making an invalid assumption. Why should their needs outgrow
"what is available with solar and wind technology". Solar and wind
technology is quite capable of supplying the needs of this country of
257 million. The harvestable wind of just 12 midwest states could supply
our needs on a competitive basis. Solar is rapidly becomming
competitive and is fully capable of also meeting our needs.

TI>I couldn't see solar and wind supporting a country of 10-20 million
TI>or more, and I wouldn't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon
TI>carries off the country's entire capacity of solar panels.

In most cases the solar panels will be firmly attached to the structures
they power, and if the typhoon carries off the buildings, then they are
in deeper trouble.

Your mind is locked on idea that big central power plants with giant
grids are necessary for a large population. Solar power generation
on-site is a more economical way to go for any population size, if they
are starting from scratch. But they are even starting to install solar
panels on the skyscrapers of New York.

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.

TI>BTW, the countries that are growing very rapidly, like Thailand and
TI>Korea, are investing heavily in next-generation nuclear plants.
TI>Perhaps the US will be buying its technology from _them_.

Your probably right. We will undoubtedly be buying our solar panels from
them.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . My wife and I got along fine for 20 yrs, then we met.
                                                                                                          
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: hot water
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:36:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:

>The problem with oil and gas water heaters is the flue. It has to have
>low thermal resistance to the water and also low resistance to the flow
>of the fumes and air up from the bottom of the flue. Much heat goes up
>the flue.

Yes, but my boiler is still supposedly 87% efficient despite no fancy flue
gizmos.  The flue is the reason it is not 100% efficient though, certain
unvented gas and kerosene room space heaters are 100% efficient.

Anyway, for the original poster, check the (required) energy efficiency
labels on water heaters at places that sell them, this will tell you the
efficiency better than us in this group.

>Real inefficiency occurs when the heater reaches temperature and shuts
>off, leaving the heat from the pilot light and the water, back through
>the low thermal resistance, to pass up the flue by convection. The
>less hot water you use, the less efficient the system. Some sort of
>electric pilot light and automatic, insulated damper in the flue are
>needed to stop this loss.

Yes.  I've been meaning to look into this to increase the efficiency of
by heating system by such a damper (hopefully with an interlock)

>M> This is reflected in the higher price of electricity compared to oil.

>Yes, but you also have pay the man to bring the oil to your house.

This is included in the price.  It is still cheaper than
heating by electricity by a wide margin.

-Mike
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:08:34 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

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

>> Ultracentrifuge rotors weigh about 2-4 Kg.  They are maybe 15 cm diameter, 
> spin at 60-80KRPM.  

>Ok now the energy -

>This is the limit of metallurgical technology, and now someone is claiming
>400 times this energy?  I doubt it.  (400 MJ minimum is required to
>satisfy the claims of the flywheel battery people).

>Also, the bronze casing only has to absorb 1/400 th the energy.  take them
>2 gallons of gasoline for the 400 MJ fuel air bomb, 1/400th is about 1/2 oz
>of gasoline - about a teaspoon.  It'll make a good bang (the freight train?)
>but can be contained.  

And now the rim velocity, to put that in perspective.  rounding the 
diameter up to 6 inches, the circumfrence is 18.84 inches.  At 80,000 rpm,
that is 1,507,964.5 inches per minute, 2,094.4 feet per second, 638.4 meters
per second.  In other words, the fragments that eject from the rim 
of the exploding ultracentrifuge are zipping along at about the velocity
of a medium power rifle bullet.  I imagine the inside of the device
is pocked with impact craters but nothing more serious than a bullet hitting
an equivalent shield.

Amazing how velocity squared throws people's intuition off.

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.
From: Essential Information <ei@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 31 Dec 92 12:43 PST
Subject: Re: Energy Ideas - Thermal Env.
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1466300127:cdp:1466300133:000:2410
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ei    Dec 31 12:43:00 1992



RESOURCES

The Passive Solar Industries Council is a national association
devoted to providing practical information on energy conscious,
passive solar design and construction throughout the United
States building industry.  PSIC provides accurate and easy-to-use
guidelines, software and general information about energy
conservation measures (ECMs), energy efficient equipment and
appliances, daylighting and passive solar architecture.  PSIC
will be publishing  Smaller Commercial Building Guidelines in
mid-1993.  Contact PSIC at 1511 K Street NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC  20005, (202) 371-0357.

The National Audubon Society has published a packet of
information, Building for an Environmental Future,  on the
retrofit of their national headquarters.  The packet details the
ECMs included in the retrofit and the environmental benefits
associated with each ECM.  The packet also provides a listing of
environmentally conscious architectural firms.  In addition,
Audubon has published a Technical Guide which provides specific
information on how to incorporate environmentally sound
principles into any building project.  Contact the National
Audubon Society, Conservation Information Department, 950 Third
Avenue, New York City, NY, 10022, (212) 546-9195.

Energy & Economics: Strategies for Office Building Design is a
guidebook for design professionals which contains strategies for
designing efficient buildings.  The book examines specific
projects for improving the efficiency of lighting, building
envelope design, heating, ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC), and much more.  Each example is examined for its cost and
energy savings.  Contact the Northeast Utilities Service Company,
Conservation and Load Management, P.O. Box 270, Hartford, CT 
06141, (203) 721-2976.

The Department of Energy established in January 1989 mandatory
standards for all new federal commercial building construction. 
For a copy of the guidelines contact the Office of Codes and
Standards, CE-43, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Ave., SW, Washington, DC  20585, (202) 586-9127.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories (LBL) has pioneered the research
of a number of energy-efficient technologies.  In particular,
they have been working on gas-filled panels and low-emissivity
windows. For more information, contact LBL, Center for Building
Sciences, Mail Stop: 90-3111, Berkeley, CA 94720, (510) 486-4800.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:06:05 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <_2sr7==@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec31.165855.22315@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>In article <p2qrxnc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>nor will it drastically change operational costs.  There is no
>>>experience with 50 year old reactors.  I have read that the issue
>>>of embrittlement is not well understood.  If John De Armond
>>>thinks these figures are junk he better take his arguments to his
>>>friends in the nuclear industry.
>
>Ahhh, Yackadamn's back!!!!  Just like a persistent case of the Clap.

Your postings make it seem like your problem is probably tertiary syph
instead, but you should get qualified medical treatment in anycase..

>>The facts are that there are proposed methods for reversing embittlement
>>but they have not been tried except in the Soviet Union and, I believe,
>>one small experimental reactor in Belgium. The costs of these proposed
>>methods are large, their effectiveness is not known. 
>
>Cost is only high relative to small things like, say, your paycheck.
>Relative to new power plant construction, annealing the pot is trivial.

This is typical of your level of either honesty or understanding, I'm not
sure which. You project costs to be trivial, but on there is zero
'on the ground' evidence to backup this assertion. Nobody has ever tried
annealing in any commercial plants, and you the only evidence you 
provide for your claim is your own personal credibility --  a rather
valueless item.

>As to effectiveness, if you've ever annealed a piece of hardened
>steel, you know how effective heat is in eliminating stress.  Really
>does not matter how the stress got there.  

Look up "extrapolation" in a dictionary.

>
>>The NRC shut down
>>Yankee Rowe precisely because its containment vessel showed signs of
>>losing enough ductility to make its continued operation dangerous. The
>>utility chose to decomission rather than to attempt annealing. The
>>rapidity of ductility loss is the subject of controversy. 
>
>Three strikes and you're out, yackadamn.  Yankee was shut down by the
>utility because it was a tiny unit that was not economical - in the
>judgement of the untility - to refurb.  While I would have liked to

Yankee Rowe was shut down by the NRC, not the utility. And it was
shut down because of embrittlement. The utility decided not to pour
an unknown but large sum of money into a speculative process. When it
comes time, other utilities will make the same judgment with bigger
reactors -- unless the public gets stuck with the bill.

>C'mon Yack.  You can do better than that.  What's wrong, still drunk
>from New Years?

What, no mention of "econnazis" in your posting? Are you getting soft
or just  continuing your post-Buchanan reassessment of the use of "nazi" as
a pejorative?



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:30:55 GMT

In article <7097@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.175000.26453@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>|> The US took a hard, and expensive, look at alternative energy
>|> systems in the 1970s. The result was that they found them not
>|> economically competitive with more mainstream energy technologies,
>|> then or in the foreseeable future. Perhaps in 100 years some of
>|> these technologies will become economic, but any work done now
>|> will have it's patents running out in 17 years. So the Japanese
>|> are free to do the early ground work at their expense if they
>|> wish, but they won't have exclusive right to reap the profits
>|> later on when the market is ready for them.
>
>maybe, and I realise how hard this may be to swallow, but just maybe the
>Japanese are thinking of the ENVIRONMENT (rather than mere money)!

Money is never *mere*. It separates the feasible from the infeasible.

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: ez026999@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Personal Environmental Impact Software
Date: 23 Dec 92 03:34:27 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis
Originator: ez026999@hamlet.ucdavis.edu

A new PC software program does environmental impact analysis for
individuals and gives a score ranging from Eco-Titan to Eco-Tyrannosaurus
rex. It covers everything you do "in excruciating detail" (San Jose
Mercury News, Computer Section).  Costs $30. For info - 800-688-9006.
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Ideas -- Solar Power
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:41:41 GMT

Overall, I liked this post, but I have a few comments.
One comment is general - none of the case studies mentioned the costs
of replacing the batteries and eventually the PV arrays (they don't last
forever).  It would be interesting to include that in the maintainance
costs for a full comparison when connecting to a utility is an option.
Afterall, the utility connection does not need to be replaced (though
if it is above ground, there will be a maintainance cost associated
with resplicing it after major storms).

In article <1466300123@igc.apc.org>, ei@igc.apc.org (Essential Information) writes:
> PV cells are made of pure silicon, the element predominant in sand.

It was probably meant to be harmless, but I hate statements like this.
It gives the impression that silicon cells are a boundless, cheap and
easily accessible resource.  This is not true.  The source for the
silicon is very pure mineral quartz (so-called "super quartz") that
is mined from pegmatite and other thermal deposits.  This stuff is
not exactly common, and compares roughly with amethyst in availablity.
It is not rare, but certainly not as common as sand.  It is also no
mean trick to get the silicon out of the quartz.  It takes a lot of
energy to remove the oxygen, and then a lot more in special furnaces
to refine away imputies and get the very high purity required for
semiconductors.  Silicon is the second most abundant element on earth,
but it is not easy to get at in a pure, elemental form.

> PHOTOVOLTAICS CAN POWER "SATELLITES" HERE ON EARTH
> 
> Photovoltaics provide the power to space satellites for data
> collection and transmission.  They can also power monitors on earth
> for data collection and transmission.  Either permanent or mobile
> stations monitoring atmospheric conditions, radiation levels,
> contaminant levels in water or other conditions for extended
> periods can be powered by PVs.

I have some knowledge of this.  PV is a great solution for unmanned
monitoring equipment, as long as you can pretty much guarantee no humans
(other than particularly responsible ones) will be anywhere near it.
Geophysical monitoring equipment is often installed out in the boonies,
but we try to present as little equipment on the surface as possible.
Anything is a temptation to a certain human element commonly found
in remote, forested, etc., areas.  Anything that sticks out from the
background will be attacked with guns, crowbars and sledgehammers.
The problem with PV is that you have this big panel that has to be
open to sunlight.  That's an open invitation to destruction.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: Essential Information <ei@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:25 PST
Subject: Seeking green int'l gov't action
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466300119:000:1399
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ei    Dec 30 11:25:00 1992


GOVERNMENT PURCHASING PROJECT
P.O. BOX 19367
WASHINGTON, DC  20036
(202) 387-8034

(c/o ei@igc.apc.org)

The Government Purchasing Project was founded by consumer
advocate Ralph Nader to encourage the U.S. government to use its
power as a consumer to bring environmentally responsible products
into the marketplace.  The project has concentrated on three
areas: solid waste reduction, energy efficiency and pollution
prevention.  As part of its energy efficiency work, the GPP
publishes "Energy Ideas," a monthly newsletter which describes
how public agencies (schools, city halls, police stations and
other facilities) can save money and prevent pollution by
installing energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. 
The newsletter has also been posted on EcoNet (see the
<climate.news> conference).

Though the first six issues have concentrated on the available
technologies, I want to focus an issue on the efforts of other
governments to use energy efficient and renewable energy
technologies.  The focus of this issue is not on how the
government can encourage the residential or commercial sectors to
use these technologies, but on how government itself uses these
technologies in its own facilities.  If anyone has information on
such efforts in countries outside of the United States, I would
like to learn more.

Happy Holidays and a healthy New Year.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kleinman

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:09:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.170056.20192@pixel.kodak.com> weimer@pixel.kodak.com writes:
>In article <drury-281292091239@esrfd.es.dupont.com>, drury@esvax.dunet.dupont.com (Robert F. Drury) writes:
>|> Stuff delete
>|> > 
>|> > 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.
>|> > 
>|> > Gary
>|> 
>|>  My 1992 Honda Civic VX has *averaged* 52.3 MPG over the past 30,000 miles.
>|>  Since I drive over 40,000 miles per year, I require a practical car.
>
>My Chevy Sprint easily gets 50 MPG in the winter and can get 60 MPG in
>the summer. This is a 4 door car with enough room for a week-long trip
>out of state carring me, my wife, my 2 year old daughter, and our
>luggage + sleeping bags and christmas presents. Even while carrying all
>this, it had no problem maintaining 65 mph up and down hills and still
>got > 50 MPG.
>
>How much more "practical" of a car do you require?

It should be able to haul a dozen 4x8 sheets of plywood and a ton
of crushed rock. :-)

I should have said "much over 50 MPG" above. Cars that do 50-60 MPG
exist and are practical for lots of uses. As I noted in another post,
they offer stiff competition to any EV.

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: dbliss@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Doug Bliss)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Ground Source Heat pumps
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:43:08 GMT
Organization: Environment Canada

In article <Ligon-221292073705@3.1.100.11> Ligon@macgw1.ge.com (Woody Ligon) writes:

>My wife and I are about to start renovation of an old farmhouse in central
>Virginia.  We are seriously considering heating/cooling using a ground
>source heat pump.  Has anyone got first hand experience with these?

>How about a review article or a list of manufacturers???.

>Thanks in advance.

>Woody Ligon
>(ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com)

>Standard disclaimer applies. 

Try Frank Cruickshanks at fcruicks@fox.nstn.ns.ca. He has done a lot of work 
in ground source heating and cooling and ATES (aquifer thermal energy 
storage).
From: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Cancer Risks at Hanford??
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:13:43 GMT
Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin
Reply-To: jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder)
NNTP-Posting-Host: moulder.radbio.mcw.edu
Keywords: hanford, radiation, cancer, nuclear waste

Recently there has been considerable press coverage in the US of a report by 
Alice Stewart and George Kneale of "excess" cancer in workers at Hanford (a US 
nuclear weapons lab and radioaactive waste disposal site).  

Does anyone know anything more about this study than what was in the press, 
like study design, numbers, etc.??

I realize that this is not exactly an energy issue, but since there are clearly 
people who read this newsgroup who interested in issues related to nuclear 
power and nuclear waste disposal . . .

BTW:  Sorry if this is a duplicate, but I think my first post aborted.

John Moulder (jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu)      414-266-4672
Radiation Biology Group
Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisc     
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen)
Subject: Re: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:06:59 GMT

>As soon as we decide that we want to lock ourselves into major commitments to
>obolete technology for the next 100 years?


But, does that mean that we should not try to come up with new
technologies??  

john

-- 
John Nielsen   MAGNUS Consultant            ______   ______   __  __	
jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu         /\  __ \ /\  ___\ /\ \/\ \
                                           \ \ \/\ \\ \___  \\ \ \_\ \
  Back off man, I'm a Scientist!            \ \_____\\/\_____\\ \_____\
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca (Bill Morrow)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 18:33:12 GMT
Organization: University of Calgary

In article <51695@seismo.CSS.GOV>, stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> Stop and go driving will require MORE energy, not less.
> 
> That's right - why do you think city mpg are less than highway?  I mean, for
> city dirving, since the velocities are lower, you fight less air resistance -
> in you naive system, city driving would have better mpg.
> 

City driving mpg figures would be higher, if we didn't sit in traffic jams and
at red lights with the engine doing nothing useful. Calculate mpg
subtracting out the gallons consumed when not moving. Depending on where you
drive, I'm sure that *effective* city mpg is considerably higher. 
The obvious advantage of the EV is that the drive motor consumes nothing
while in gridlock. The not so obvious disadvantages as that we can't use
the waste heat to warm up the passenger compartment, on a day like today.

On the ball-of-fluff-at-plasma-temperatures front, has anyone any useful
information on the many small flywheel scenario described in the last IEEE
Spectrum issue? If I remember right, one reason for going this route was that
if one of these micro-flywheels failed, it wouldn't make the whole "battery"
go ka-BOOM. Also, I believe there were advantages in the design of magnetic
bearings and such for tiny flywheels. How much energy in a fly-wheel 1cm
across spinning at 1Mrpm :) ?
__________________________________________________________
Bill Morrow                    voice: (403) 220-6275
Clinical Neurosciences         fax: (403) 283-4740
University of Calgary          e-mail: morrow@cns.ucalgary.ca