HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hage@netcom.com (Carl Hage)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.space
Subject: Re: Porous Silicon
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:52:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Sep30.225242.24110
Distribution: na
Organization: Various Places

: In article <3043.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
: > The  "cold-fusion" syndrome seems to be back. On page 33  of  the
: > September  22  issue of Electronic Engineering Times there  is  a
: > report  of a photovoltaic cell which measures 97% efficient.

Not quite. This was measuring the efficiency of a photodetector in being
able to detect photons, not the energy conversion efficiency of a
photovoltaic cell. From the article (actually Sept 21), "We found the MPS
(metal/porous-silicon/silicon) photodiode is comparable in performance to
commercially available silicon photodiodes, but without needing an
anti-reflection coating." ... "Standard silicon photodiodes need
additional surface treatment to keep photons from bouncing off before they
are captured in the silicon lattice. Experiments at SUNY suggest that a
porous-silicon layer is able to trap 100 percent of the photons striking
it eliminating the additional anti-reflection processing step." (Of
course they didn't mention that making porous silicon is an additional
processing step.)

The advance in porous silicon is eliminating the problem of reflection.
In there experiments, the 97% efficient detector had reflection measured
at 2%. The article did not mention an estimated power conversion efficiency
in photovoltaic applications.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 19:42:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.023800.6594@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
> 
> Is the article correct that there was no additional system after this
> to prevent a core meltdown?
> 
> Is the article correct in the implication that a core meltdown is
> a Bad Thing and would cause people to suffer Bad Things?  If not,
> then how do you communicate that a core meltdown is not a Bad Thing?
> 
> Perhaps we have a failure of terminology here, too?  Instead of 
> core meltdown, would things be as 'bad' if it were 'core overheat'
> or 'fuel integrity loss'?  Would it even be possible to substitute 
> a new term without suffering terrible PR flak for 'NewSpeak'?
> 
> Can you explain WHY the article doesn't cause you concern and WHAT
> the article said that is wrong or misleading?  (Or just panders to
> a misperception by the public?)  Then you will have a handle on 
> where to begin to salvage the future for nuclear power.
> 
> E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM
>

What is missing from the article is this:  to have a meltdown, the fuel must
go above a certain temperature which is either its melting point or the point
at which steam/zirconium reaction begins.  At no time in the article was the
temperature margin to failure even mentioned.  My guess is that once the 
reactor scramed due to the pump being inadvertenly turned off and the ECC 
activated, core temperature WENT DOWN!  Plus, having the ECC turn on is a
safety precaution incase none of the reactor coolant pumps could not be turned
back on.  Since this was an operator error, I am certain that the operators
verified their margins to safety, cutback on the ECC system, and then restored
the plant to a normal shutdown operating line-up. 

Again I am willing to bet that no safety margins even decreased during this 
whole incident.  Thus, the hysteria generated by the article is completely
and absolutely unfounded.  Just another reason why many anti-nukes cannot be
trusted since they are not concerned with the truth but rather with pursuing
their own politically correct plans for telling the rest of us what is good
for us.

Don Palmrose



========== 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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:05:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.152144.24524@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.221108.1452@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>>[...]  I have posted extensively in the past
>>about how using less electricity via efficiency is far cheaper
>>than building the new capacity needed to supply inefficient equipment.
>>This message is starting to get through to some utilities.  
>
>Not true, according to Ontario Hydro's experience.  Conservation and 
>efficiency were given top priority (ie. greater than supply) in its 
>recent 25-year Demand/Supply Plan (currently under government review),
>resulting in it being one of -- if not *the* -- most ambitious demand
>management plans in North America.  According to their cost estimates, 
>the demand management components are the most expensive, per MW, in the
>whole plan.  (Cost, obviously, was not given top priority either).

Do you have any information or figures for this?  Do you know what
their DSM strategies were or what the expected cost per MW was?
The studies I have seen (by EPRI) have shown different results,
and have been verified by some experience in the US.  
>
>>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
>
>-- 
>Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
>Dept. Engineering Physics
>McMaster University
>Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:09:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Oct5.200920.19858
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Oct5.062440.3437@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>From the Oct 1 San Jose Murkey News, page 14A, dateline TOKYO (AP)
>
>Quoted without permission:
>
>*** BEGIN EXCERPTED QUOTE ***  (elipsis ... denote deletions)
>
>JAPANESE PLANT BARELY AVERTS CORE MELTDOWN
>
>Backup system cools reactor after switch is flipped by mistake
>
>TOKYO (AP) -- A mistaken flip of a switch by a nuclear power plant
>worker caused a reactor's cooling pumps to fail, a government official
>said Wednesday, but an emergency system took over and prevented a
>nuclear meltdown.

     CHARLOTTESVILLE (notAP) -- This is what is supposed to happen.

                            dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:54:28 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

I know, bad form to followup your own followup, but I had an idea ...

In article <1992Oct6.023800.6594@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

>>>One guy makes a mistake, and per the article, the plant is one system
>>>away from a meltdown.

>Is the article correct in the implication that a core meltdown is
>a Bad Thing and would cause people to suffer Bad Things?  If not,
>then how do you communicate that a core meltdown is not a Bad Thing?

>Perhaps we have a failure of terminology here, too?  Instead of 
>core meltdown, would things be as 'bad' if it were 'core overheat'
>or 'fuel integrity loss'?  Would it even be possible to substitute 
>a new term without suffering terrible PR flak for 'NewSpeak'?

Another question:  Is there a reactor design that CANNOT have a 
core meltdown?  (I think I remember that the HTGCR is designed
so that it stabilizes at a non-melt temperature...).  

If a meltdown is defined as a disaster, then a plant that cannot have
a meltdown would be a much easier system to sell...  

I like the idea put forward by John De Armond for a string of several
small nuke plants feeding one large turbine house (lets you have some nice
throtling, maintenance, and shutdown modes, if the economies of scale
work out).  If each were 'unable to have a meltdown' and 'passively
safe' with no 'emergency cooling systems' required, I think one would
be a long way toward solving the 'sensation' problem...

-- 

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: rat1@me1.MsState.Edu (Robert Thompson)
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:44:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.152315.10819@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.025428.6716@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>>Another question:  Is there a reactor design that CANNOT have a 
>>core meltdown?  (I think I remember that the HTGCR is designed
>>so that it stabilizes at a non-melt temperature...).  
>
>We cannot really use the word "cannot", but the CANDU is one type of reactor
>with an extremely low probability of having a meltdown.  This is primarily
>due to the presence of a separate, low-pressure, low-temperature moderator
>(heavy water) which is massive in proportion to the fuel and coolant volume,
>and which acts as a heat sink if fuel ever overheats.          

Most of the advanced light-water reactor designs put forth as the
next generation of power plant design are "inherently safe" designs;
that is even in the event of all-rods-out major LOCA there is enough
water left in the vessel and containment to absorb the decay heat--
i.e. huge thermal sink.  This is achieved in a number of ways I
can't really remember right off the top of my head--I'm taking
shielding this semester.  Also the integral fast reactor being
developed by the folks at Argonned National Lab is another
inherently safe design.  This liquid-sodium cooled, pool-type reactor
has enough thermal capacity in the liquid Na pool, in combination
with natural convection off the vessel walls, to absord decay heat.
By the way the all-rods-out scenario means literally the operators
pull the rods out and walk away from the plant.  Natural reactivity
effects keep the pile sub-critical.

--Another environmentalist for nuclear energy-- 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:05:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.155036.11517@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

> or the IR drop becomes really excessive. Can that reasonably be done with 
> aluminum, or even copper? 
...
> would be a cable of 2.48 million CM, or about 1.6 inches diameter.
> Well what do you know, you could do it after all if you installed
> roughly 224 million pounds of copper line per 900 MW you wished to
> transfer. What's copper going for per pound these days?


High voltage lines are made of aluminum.  It is more conductive,
per *pound*, than copper.  Cheaper too.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: kline@well.sf.ca.us (David Kline)
Subject: Re: How much oil is there left?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:11:05 GMT

In <1992Sep29.170459.22159@src.honeywell.com> shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar) writes:


>I have heard widely diverging views on how much oil is left on Earth, mostly by
>politicians with an ax to grind.  I was wondering if anybody can give me
>pointers to any real analyses of how much is left, how expensive it is to get

Something of a consensus number for reserves outside the former communist bloc isabout 800 billion barrels.  A good source for country-by-country breakdown is the annual end-of-the-year production summary in the _Oil and Gas Journal_  The bias there is an industry one, whatever that implies.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration and the Int'l Energy Agency both 
produce annual reports that probably have reserves data in them.  Also, the BP 
annual statistical review of energy is a carefully-researched source for these
numbers.
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Stupid media(was Re: Another...)
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:14:49 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


The Communications Act of 1923, as amended, declared the airwaves the
property of everyone, simply speaking.  Anyone can monitor any
frequency so long as they do not use the information for illegal
purposes.  This includes, unfortunately, the press, who hide behind
the Consitution whenever it suits their purpose.
 
The only exception to this is cellular phone frequencies, which
Congress made subject to the wiretap laws two years ago.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy is based on the theory that the common people know  
what they want and deserve to get it -- GOOD AND HARD!!!
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:23:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.025428.6716@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:

>Another question:  Is there a reactor design that CANNOT have a 
>core meltdown?  (I think I remember that the HTGCR is designed
>so that it stabilizes at a non-melt temperature...).  

We cannot really use the word "cannot", but the CANDU is one type of reactor
with an extremely low probability of having a meltdown.  This is primarily
due to the presence of a separate, low-pressure, low-temperature moderator
(heavy water) which is massive in proportion to the fuel and coolant volume,
and which acts as a heat sink if fuel ever overheats.          
  
-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:10:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Oct5.161053.11641
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct4.105026.8799@gallant.apple.com> ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.014406.12933@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep22.035724.18432@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>>>My God, 'heavily biased away from the sunbelt' indeed!  I wish my
>>>A/C bill was less than 1/10th my heating bill!
>>>
>>>I can almost go without heating for most of the winter as it is.
>>>When I lived in the Central Valley of California, summer cooling
>>>was far more costly than winter heat ...
>>>
>>>>I'd expect that in the sunbelt the percentages for heating and air 
>>>>conditioning would be about 30% and 30% today, or even more heavily
>>>>biased toward AC.
>>>
>>>More A/C than 30/30 ... at least in the hot parts of the SUNBelt.
>>
>>The Sunbelt is more than the Central Valley of California. It gets
>>damn cold here in Georgia in winter. 5 degree days are not uncommon.
>>You can freeze your butt in West Texas in winter as the cold wind
>>blows down from the North. In summer, temperatures in Georgia hover
>>in the low 90s, as does the *humidity*. During the tropical storm
>>season, and through much of January and February, you can go a week
>>without seeing the sun. Your extreme southwestern bias distorts
>>your picture of the Sunbelt.
>
>I'm from NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (and don't you forget it!) not SOUTHERN CA.!

Sorry, you did say, "..when I was living in the Central Valley.." at
the start of the thread about abundance of sunshine. I see that stretches
from Sacramento to Bakersfield. I spent a winter in San Francisco one 
weekend. Didn't see the sun at all, cold too. That's probably the ocean.
According to my climate map, your daily highs are in the 90s in summer
and lows creep down toward freezing in the winter, not as extreme as
North Georgia. It says the northern valley gets between 40 and 80 inches 
of rain a year, must be cloudy *sometimes*. :-)

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:36:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.190509.13588@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul


 Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.155036.11517@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) wr


ites:
>
>> or the IR drop becomes really excessive. Can that reasonably be done with
>> aluminum, or even copper?
>...
>> would be a cable of 2.48 million CM, or about 1.6 inches diameter.
>> Well what do you know, you could do it after all if you installed
>> roughly 224 million pounds of copper line per 900 MW you wished to
>> transfer. What's copper going for per pound these days?
>
>
>High voltage lines are made of aluminum.  It is more conductive,
>per *pound*, than copper.  Cheaper too.


	High voltage conductor wire is made of Aluminum wrapped
around a steel core.  The aluminum used is high purity, and thus
very low yield stress.  The steel holds the weight of the
composite.  An 800,000 volt line has 3 sets of four wires, each
about 2 inches in diameter.  $1.00/lb is probably a little low
for cost estimate for the aluminum, but it certainly is less than
$2.00/lb.

	They put a high voltage line across my fathers farm about
20 years ago, and no ill effects have been observed yet.

J.P. Papai
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Organization: LSI Logic/Headland Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:50:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.070724.15965@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <53930@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>Did you learn to drive in Boston? 
>
>No.  I learned to drive in Houston.  Is there a significant difference?

I lived in Houston for two years, and have had to drive in Boston
on a couple of business trips.  I've driven in San Francisco and
Los Angeles.  Boston is the worst I've seen anywhere.

I've enjoyed your responses to Victor.  Keep up the good work!

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
LSI Logic/Headland Products               No whimper, no blast.
sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp                  His life's goal accomplished,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                         Zero risk at last.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 26 Sep 1992 22:22:18 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <53965@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>   Unfortunately, we do not have an infinite amount of time on this planet,
>>   and condensation of facts and opinions is required.  It is exactly this
>>   forcing of a "readily-digestable" answer that got the nuclear industry
>>   into the bind it is fighting its way out of.  It also forces people to
>>   overstate their claims in order to prove their points quickly (if 
>>   watching this newsgroup makes this believable).
>
>I don't think that there is a good excuse for overstating claims.

Yackadam, the eternal bleater of "let's base our analysis on worst-case
scenarios" doesn't think there's a good excuse for overstating claims.  Well,
at least he seems to have a sense of humor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:30:41 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct6.152315.10819@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.025428.6716@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>>Another question:  Is there a reactor design that CANNOT have a 
>>core meltdown?  (I think I remember that the HTGCR is designed
>>so that it stabilizes at a non-melt temperature...).  
>
>We cannot really use the word "cannot", but the CANDU is one type of reactor
>with an extremely low probability of having a meltdown.  This is primarily
>due to the presence of a separate, low-pressure, low-temperature moderator
>(heavy water) which is massive in proportion to the fuel and coolant volume,
>and which acts as a heat sink if fuel ever overheats.          

Interesting...  Perhaps you could describe the CANDU design a bit more?

How is the moderator kept in close proximity to the core, yet 
kept cool and low pressure?  Or is 'low-temperature' a relative term?

How low is extremely low probability?  Is it a theoretical possibility
by no one can count that many decimal places, or is it a small but
finite and demonstrable quantity?  If the probability is so low that
there is no need for an 'emergency' cooling system, then one might
still be able to solve the PR issues of 'emergency' cooling ...

From what I've heard of the CANDU design, it has some nice features,
but I don't know what architechture leads to those features ...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has