HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tgl@slee01.srl.ford.com (Tom Leone)
Subject: Re: NEWS: "Minus-Emission Cars" Tap Hydrogen
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:13:58 GMT

jym@mica.berkeley.edu (via Jym Dyer) posted an article:

: Minus-Emission Cars Tap Hydrogen 
: by Elaine Weinreb 
:  
: ...but a hydrogen-burning car can be called "minus emission"
: because it turns a pollutant into a clean fuel.

This is a misleading statement, because any internal combustion
engine will produce oxides of nitrogen (from heating up air,
which contains nitrogen).  NOx emissions react with volatile
organic compounds to form photochemical smog and ozone.  Ozone
is currently the most difficult air pollutant to control in many
U.S. cities.

Although hydrogen-burning engines do not emit unburned
hydrocarbons, this is of little value in many cities, where
other organic gases are produced by industry (e.g. solvents) and
vegetation.

Also, the above article fails to mention one of the biggest
drawbacks to hydrogen as a vehicle fuel: storage.  It requires
very low temperatures and/or high pressures to keep hydrogen
liquified (and gaseous hydrogen is too bulky for a vehicle).
Alternatives are being investigated, but none are near-term.

Don't get me wrong, I think hydrogen has great potential,
especially for stationary power, and possibly for fuel cells.
But don't try to sell it as a vehicle fuel for the near future.

Tom Leone <tgl@slee01.srl.ford.com>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:02:56 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct5.225742.19382@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <rhoward.718317620@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>
>>>The automatic activation of the emergency cooling system prevented
>>>radiation from being released by the plant in the Fukushima district,
>>>70 miles northeast of Tokyo.
>>
>>I don't know that this follows logically.  It's sort of like saying
>>"Plant operates normally.  No radiation released today.  Film at 11"
>...
>In contrast, the following story was also on the news wires...
>
>   "Three missing, presumed dead in Indiana power plant fire"
>
>	SULLIVAN, Ind. (UPI) -- Three people were missing and presumed
>   dead Monday afternoon after fire raced through a power generating
>   station at Merom along the Wabash River in western Indiana. ...
>
>This was a fossil fuel plant, and they did not die from
>exposure to ionizing radiation.  I am sure their families are
>overjoyed at their good fortune.

It is worth noting that I saw 'film at 11' of the fossil fuel plant
on the nightly news complete with 'choppers' rescuing folks from 
the rooftop; yet saw not a word about the Japanese nuke on the
nightly TV news ... only on the 11th page of the paper...  Could it
be that the news media did, in fact, cover the two accidents in
an appropriate ratio?

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity (wind v. nuke,coal)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 02:49:48 GMT

In article <3269.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>You don't seem to have much faith in the future of the EPRI sponsored,
>5 cent/kWh, "nickel", wind turbine. According to my meager research this
>turbine will back nuclear with it's average cost of 5.97 cents/kWh off
>the map. Installed cost of this turbine (like coal-fired) is about
>$1/watt as opposed to $3/watt for nuclear.
>
>My sources are the June 1990 "EPRI Journal", page 15, about the turbine
>and DOE/EIA-0455(90) "Electric Plant Cost and Power Production Expenses
>1990", page 14 about nuclear average generation expenses.
>
>EPRI in the cited article seemed quite confident that this turbine will
>compete with coal-fired plants as well, but that is my only source at
>the moment. Mr. Dietz implies that it will never happen.
>
>A "three cent" turbine would really give them trouble.

EPRI does a lot of research in alternative electricity sources, but for
large amounts of baseload power, you're not going to use wind turbines.
Installing a number of these stations in a windy region will help out the
load at certain times, but I wouldn't want 25-50% of my utility's capacity
in wind.         

Mr. Dietz is right. Wind can't compete for baseload power.

Tino
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The nuclear scientist will prepare the bed on which mankind must lie; and
 if mankind doesn't fit - well, that will be just too bad for mankind."
                                      - Aldous Huxley
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ornitz@kodak.kodak.com (Barry Ornitz)
Subject: Windmill Towers
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co.
Distribution: us
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 14:05:47 GMT

Who manufactures windmill towers in the U.S. besides Dempster Industries of
Beatrice, NE?  Email responses are preferred to minimize Net bandwidth.
					Thanks, Barry
					ornitz@kodak.com
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: IN-LINE WATER HEATERS
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:06:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

PN>>If you use 10k gallons a month and have less than 10 people in your
PN>>household, then you are *not* conserving.

PN>Come on, that's only .03 acre-feet....

Just goes to show that one man's flood is another man's drought.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
                                                                                           
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: rovero@guam.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:54:22 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

The NPR piece on "natural" problems with solar and wind energy was very
interesting.  So were the pieces over the weekend that dealt with the
"damage" Hurricane Andrew did to the Everglades and Louisiana bayous.

And I thought hurricanes were *part* of the environment....   :-)

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:15:19 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep29.070212.4970@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>===Does anyone know the present percentage supplied by PEAKing capacity?
>>===This is the immediate penetration available to the solar market.  

>So we are arguing over the middle ground with no numbers on either side.
>This could drag on a long time ...

If we agree that we're talking about the middle ground but don't have the data
to resolve exactly where in the middle ground we're talking about, then there's
no need to drag it on any further.

>>True.  Meaning that it can replace some fraction of the current peaking
>>capacity, not that it can replace it ALL as your original post claimed.
>
>My original post is quoted at the top.  It, too, says 'penetration 
>available to solar'.  I have NOT claimed that solar CAN or WILL 
>replace ALL peaking plant, as you assert I did in the above sentence.

As far as I can see, if solar CAN'T replace some part of the current peaking
capacity, then that fraction of peaking capacity is NOT part of the "immediate
penetration available to solar."  If we're willing to allow capacity that
solar's incapable of replacing into the category, then baseload falls in there
too.

>I have only said that the peak market is the one that is available
>for solar to penetrate.  It 'has a shot' at replacing peak plant.  
>It has no hope, for one hell of a long time to come, of replacing
>baseload.  Are we arguing over something we agree on?

It would appear so.

>The only problems come in when there is an abnormally high AVERAGE 
>cloud cover or an abnormally low average cloud cover.  In the first
>case it is just like a nuke scraming or a turbine site being down
>for unexpected failure.  Handled the same way.

Right:  By conventional peaking plants being brought on-line.

>>To the extent that total solar energy available from all over the country
>>varies from day to day, solar power will be unable to displace its full
                                                     ********************
>>capacity in other peaking plants.
  ********
>
>OR you overbuild the quantity of solar plant such that it has enough
>power produced on bad days to match the prior peaking plant.

I thought that's what I said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Sup
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:52:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmt.1992Sep27.195233.18070
Distribution: na
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <3234.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
>JW>It appears to be spoon-feeding time.  Okay, since A.Lovins has been been
>JW>mentioned here recently, let's consider him.  In the mid-80's he made about
>JW>$600/day as a consultant and speaker.  "Energy consultant" label aside,
>JW>Lovins is anti-nuclear at the heart.  He has made big money from the
>JW>movement, and he has tremendous power.  Need I go on?  (Please don't come
>JW>back with "Okay, that's one.  Who else...?")
>
>$600/day is chicken feed. A great number of lawyers in that period
>charged $600/hr. A lot more do today. My ex-boss, a PH/D physicist,
>charges $160/hr for consulting and he charged $95/hr for my time.

	I went to Albuquerque a few months ago to score some chinese food and
buy a camp stove.  I ended up buying one at Sandia Mountain Outfitters,  and
I found that one of the salesmen there was a solar-energy consultant.  We
ended up talking about energy policy,  and I asked him what he thought about
Amory Lovins.   He said that Amory Lovins had "sold out" to electric utilities
since he made $600 /day working for them.  He also seemed to think that EPRI
is totally evil --  I agreed that they were pretty bad at the Earth Summit
(even more obnoxious than Shirley McClaine and her friends),  but he didn't
really accept that they did sponsor some good research towards energy
efficiency.  Still,  I did learn a bit more about PV and other kinds of
solar energy systems from this guy...  And I also noticed that solar hot
water heaters are becoming very popular in ABQ;  it seemed like about half
the houses in some neighborhoods are equipped.  The ones that I was noticing
seemed to be one-piece units that seemed to contain a tank and a single
solar panel.

	In any case,   it seems that Amory Lovins gets some flak from both
sides;  but one could argue that most of the technology that he is pushing
to the utilities,  such as compact flourescents,  are things that are good
ideas even if we do use nuclear power.  After all,  energy efficiency should
be a part of our energy policy no matter how we generate electricity (unless
we get some miracle machine that generates electricity for like 1 cent/GWh!)



--
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 29 Sep 1992 02:31:25 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep28.213033.1123@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>Peaking capacity is also used
>>when baseload plants are down for maintenance. 
>
>And it could still be so used.  If you need to have a nuke worth of
>disaster coverage, you have a nuke worth of maintenance coverage or 
>a nuke worth of 'loss of sun' coverage.

I think you're missing an important point here:  When a baseload plant is taken
down for maintenance, it's generally down for maintenance for at least several
days (they do scheduled maintenance on them during the off-peak season).  This
means that solar CANNOT be used to make up for this temporary loss of base-load
capacity, unless you've either got a LOT of storage capacity or a global grid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:33:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.050337.5941@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:

>In article <1992Sep22.194003.12040@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>:TMI was an 
>:unforseen failure mode, and the "thing" limited civil damage, as designed.
>
>*WRONG* *WRONG* *WRONG*  TMI was a *PREDICTED* failure mode that was predicted
>in WASH-1400 as is documented in the Kemery Report on TMI.  The idea that
>TMI was not predicted is simple urban myth from the anti-nuke folks, just
>like the urban myth about plutonium being the most toxic substance in the
>world.  

WASH-1400 may include such predictions, but -- at least according
to my reference (_Reactor Accidents_ by David Mosey, NEI Special  
Publications) -- the stuck-open pressure relief valve, which was central to 
the accident, was *not* identified (and therefore analysed) as a small break
LOCA in the safety analysis for TMI, nor was it included in plant operator 
training or operating procedures.  This isn't to say that components of the
TMI accident weren't analysed, but the main cause and driving force behind
the accident (a valve stuck-open for 2 hours, 22 min emptying the primary 
coolant into containment) was unforseen and unprepared for.  My point, of
course, was that the "forgiving" nature of reactor design, along with 
multiple barrier containment, worked -- as designed -- to greatly reduce
the consequences of even an unforseen failure mode.



>Kenneth Ng

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: --Early Turbine Still Ope
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:25:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <3233.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:

> However, when the investment tax credit was terminated in 1985-86, there
> were a little over 4000 wind turbines in California. Now there are over
> 17,000 turbines operating with over 90% availablity with more being
> installed every day with even higher availability.

This is a bit misleading.  New wind turbine installation in the US has
nearly ground to a halt.  It is far below even a few years ago.  The
California wind farms were supported by generous contracts paying
$.10/kWh or so for the electricity; those contracts are over or nearly
over and the payments will now be much lower.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roofs
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:11:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <12941@ntdd-1> meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:
>In article <3000.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>
>>the roofs in the country were simply painted white. Every  physi-
>>cist  knows  that homes with white roofs are much cooler  in  the
>>summer and a lot warmer in the winter.
>
>Since I am not a physicist, could you explain how a white roof
>causes a house to be "a lot warmer in the winter"?

Less radiative heat loss due to a poorer radiator.  Black radiates AND
absorbes better than white...
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

"Nothing can keep an argument going like two persons who aren't
sure what they're arguing about."   O.A.Battista
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Stupid media(was Re: Another...)
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:14:57 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

AG!
That news team should be shot!
Aren't there laws to keep others from listening in on such communications?
(Yes, I KNOW that it is really easy to do)
but... this also means that they almost had to be purposely listening for such
activity.

Kinda scares me to know that the sensationalistic media is actively
scanning for juicy news .
 AND they had the gall to chew out the people at the site, with
totally non-confirmed facts.
(What if some kids were playing with their radios? hm.... NEWS AT 10....)

grumble, grumble.....

Joe
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Stupid media(was Re: Another...)
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:07:25 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

Well, that is comforting to know.

BUT...
This almost certainly means that the media(or at least some news agencies)
must actually have people listening for such "news".

What really bothers me, though, is that they did not bother to even
check to see if the place COULD possibly have such an accident.  They just
started to hammer on some guy over the phone.

Ag.  Talk about desperate for "burn and bleed" stories.
I would have been tempted to lie to them over the phone(actually just
act a bit wierd or hesitant).  Would be sorta fun to get them at their own
game.
I bet THAT would keep them more in line in the future.(esp. if they
actually DID a story that was found to be false.)
"Media starts rumor to do fake story... news at 10"

Joe
---
Guess BIG BROTHER *IS* watching you
(or at least listening)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 09:54:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <3006.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>
>PD>This ignores the most serious problem with batteries: cost.
>PD>There are 15-minute rechargable nicads, but they are far too
>PD>expensive for use in a real vehicle, at least as the primary means
>PD>of energy storage.

>Nickel metal-hydride batteries supposedly will be far more robust than
>nicads without the memory problems and far better for the environment.

I have some NiMH batteries.  They work well and are quite robust.  Too
robust ... 

The ONLY fault I've seen with them is that they have a very large end
cap (they are AA cells) to accomodate the much higher amperage they
can produce.  (bigger even than any D cell end cap!)  This doesn't work
in most of the things I've got that take AA cells since they expect
the small end cap...

My guess is that NiMH are going to obsolete NiCd for most uses in 10 years
(allowing that long for equipment manuf. to make new stuff that holds 
the new batteries) and IF THE PRICE CAN BE BROUGHT DOWN, lead acid
in about 15 years.  (Bald guesses...).

For the lead acid guess, they would have to reduce the self discharge
rate, too ... it's a bit high now ...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Dream Design? (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 10:05:35 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep29.034611.4009@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <19v7v4INNahj@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>>Well, having a set of standard designs rather than every unit a custom design
>>has been shown to allow better quality control in many other industries.  Seems
>>like it ought to help in the nuclear power industry, too.
>
>I'd like to ask a bit of indulgence here:  What would be your 'dream design'
>for this purpose?  Would it be a LMFB or a HTGR or an 'inherently save LWR'
>or what?

>If the industry were given a mandate to come up with THE reactor design
>(or maybe two, if there were a synergistic set where one bred and the
>other generated, for example) for the next 50 years, what would it be?

Nice attempt at a straw-man argument, but it won't wash.  Who said anything
about coming up with "THE reactor design"?  Would you also suggest that there's
such a thing as "THE best automobile design"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:49:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: kakwa.1992Oct2.164918.5191
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada


One of the standard assignments at the University of  
Sasketchewan's Dept of Architecture was to design a house  
that could be heated for $100/year, and built on a normal  
lot.

The purpose of the assignment was to teach the kids about  
different materials, and to try to break them out of  
conventional thinking.

The house looks very normal, but does have a lot of glass  
on the south side, as well as having styrofoam shutters  
that open and shut automatically reducing loss through the  
windows.  The house is so tightly sealed they have to run  
de-humidifiers all year round, and have to force the air  
exchange (using heat exchangers) to keep the air reasonably  
fresh.  Outside walls are two layers of 2x6, offset so the  
studs don't line up.  All windows are triple pane.

Note:  Saskatoon has frequent periods when the temperature  
has a HIGH of -30 C

They have build some of these houses
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4744 sci.space:13805