HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:46:37 GMT

aa139@Freenet.carleton.ca (Mike Lynch) writes:



>To claim a capital cost of $1000/kw is extremely optimistic...perhaps
>even fanciful. In today's dollars foir an LWR or a CANDU (excluding 
>heavy water) a capital cost of $2000/kw may be fair.

I have no experience in costing nuclear power plants of any kind, but
I did read the article in The Economist for Nove 21-27 '92, entitled
Nuclear Power -- Losing ist charm.  On page 22 there is a little table
of capital costs of US nuclear power plants by year of construction
start, 1982 dollars per kW.  There you will find that for the 5 plants
started in 1976,77, the estimated cost at start of construction was
$794, at half-way, $1065, and at completion, $2132.

So, that should put the discussion of $250/kW or even $1200/kW to rest,
no?  Unless of course The Economist is to be dismissed as a pinko,
liberal, econazi rag?

The article is very pessimistic for any increase in installed capacity
except a small increase in France, Japan, and Canada, and even there
the economics are only slightly better than fossil fuel plants.

There is another interesting table in the article on page 24.  This
givea OECD countries' public spending on energy R&D, 1991 dollars,
in millions:

			1980-91 annual ave	1991

Nuclear
	conventional		3,296		2,914
	breeder			1,567		675
	fusion			1,115		896

Fossil & related		1,536		1,364
Renewables			895		593
Conservation & other		1,661		1,851

So, in 1991, Nuclear totals 4,485 million dollars vs 583 for renewables
almost a factor of 8.  For an energy source with such a dim economic
future this is out of line.

Looks as if the only hope for nuclear power is a carbon tax.
--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.  
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:48:53 GMT

In article <51773@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

> too large, and vibration from moving over the rollers at high speed would
> probably fracture the rotor.  Could this be done magnetically?  How does
> one push against the outer diameter of a ring in all directions using
> a magnet?


As I mentioned, John Hull and coworkers at ANL looked at various
magnetic schemes.  The one they eventually went with used attractive
magnetic levitation to supply the centripetal acceleration.

Attractive levitation is provably unstable for motionless objects in
static magnetic fields (a consequence of Earnshaw's theorem).  In this
case, the ring is either stable radially and unstable along the
rotation axis, or vice versa.

However, Hull and coworkers showed that by alternating regions around
the ring in which the magnets were in one of these two configurations,
the motion of the ring would make it stable in both directions.  This
is mathematically analogous to the focusing of charged particule beams
by alternating gradient quadrupole magnets.

There had to be an auxiliary system for startup, as the stability
only holds in a certain range of ring angular velocities.  Also, note
that the tension in the ring can be made arbitrarily small.  Their
scheme had a characterstic ring decay time of up to a month(!).

Amusingly, this idea was motivated by Keith Lofstrom's Launch Loop;
one of Hull et. al.'s papers refers his Analog article.

I haven't seen anything about this idea recently, so perhaps it
had a serious problem, wasn't economical, or just no one wanted it.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 05:49:43 GMT

I calculate that the maximum energy density (ED_max) that can be 
stored in a spinning loop of some fiber without breaking it is 

ED_max = S_max/(2 rho)

where S_max is the breaking point stress (max force per unit 
cross sectional area) the fiber can withstand, and rho is the 
material density (kg/m^3).

A reasonable maximum stress would be 10^8 Pascals (= 14000 psi = 1000 atm), and 
a reasonable density for a carbon based material would be 3 10^3 kg/m^3
(density of diamond), which yields a maximum  energy density
of

ED_max = 17000 Joule/kg = 4200 cal/kg = 4.2 Kcal/kg

This is low , compared to heat of combustion energy densities
of organic compounds. I don't have the energy density of
gasoline handy, but it must be on the order of 1000 Kcal/kg
(similar to a hamburger), so that the flywheel is down by a factor
of 200 or so from gasoline. Thus we would need 200 times the mass of flywheel
as there is gas in a gas tank---not a good proposition. Even if
we used the S_max = 10^6 psi = 10^9 Pascal figure suggested for
a carbon crystaline fiber, we only get a factor of 10 improvement,
and still need 20 times more flywheel mass that gasoline mass. That
is at the margin of practicality, and doesn't inlude the mass of the 
shielding. Doesn't look good....

Q: to the Seattle company that was cited in Popular Science: how
do you figure to overcome this? 


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:44:07 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1993Jan12.152424.554@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@zaphod.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.222018.28813@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan11.213932.12271@apgea.army.mil> jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil (Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>) writes:
>>>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."                                               |

t can't supply 100% of the needs outside of the midwest, but it can still
make a noticable effect.  15% of the nations supply is not a trivial
amount.  Also, there was mention of CAES, compressed air energy storage,
recently in the Wind Energy Weekly.  They said that EPRI was studying
this and it might be feasible over 75% of the US.  Could be a promising
storage technology, though I don't know too many details.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Turkey Point Damage (was: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 01:37:45 GMT

In article <51774@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <C0G5tF.IBB@encore.com>, wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
>> So why should I believe Turkey Point is that much better designed than
>> Homestead AFB?
>
>However, I have read about and even seen films of actual testing they do
>on nuke plants.  I have had some small personal involvement in considerations
>of "earthquake proof" for nukes (no, I am not at liberty to discuss it).

You may be referring to the steel and vulcanized rubber blocks that are
inserted into the foundation, forcing the building to slightly jiggle
during an earthquake? I believe they're in use in Japan.

>One film really sticks in my mind (not because of the proof of nuke
>permanence, but rather the experimental setup).  They tested the containment
>structure design against projectiles.  They built a full-scale segment of
>the concrete structure, then developed a gun that could fire lead pipes
>and telephone poles, etc, at 300 mph.  They then shot these things at
>the wall and filmed the results slow-mo.  The wall wasn't even scratched,
>let alone ruptured, but the telephone poles and things destroyed them
>selves quite nicely.  It takes a tornado to fling a telephone pole
>anywhere near those speeds, so the containment is tornado-proof, let alone
>a mere hurricane.  (Building test cases like this explains part of why
>nuke construction is so expensive.  But I kinda like the idea of a
>telephone pole gun, even without the nukes.)

My favorite is the film of the jet fighter screaming into a portion of a
concrete containment (@ Los Alamos). Left a nasty scorch on it. 

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Wind Energy Weekly
Date: 4 Jan 93 08:54:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

EUROPEAN WIND TO TOP
BILLION-KWH MARK

European wind turbines will, for the first time, exceed 1 billion
kWh (1 TWh) in electric power output in 1992.

Production within Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands alone will
reach 1.25 billion kWh this year, as much as will be generated by
wind in either California's Altamont or Tehachapi Pass, and more
than twice the amount projected from turbines in the San Gorgonio
Pass.

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.

If current trends continue, European nations will install 1,100 MW
of wind generating capacity by the end of 1993.  During 1992 and
1993 as much as 500 MW of new capacity will be added, mostly in
Denmark, Germany, England, and the Netherlands.

The following compilation by Wind Energy Weekly was derived from
numerous sources including Andrew Garrad of the United Kingdom's
Garrad Hassan Associates, Birger Madsen of Denmark's BTM Consult,
and the European Community.

At its current pace, the total scale of European wind development
will rival the windfarms of California by 1995.  Europeans, whether
privately or through their electric utilities, are investing $300
million to $500 million per year in wind equipment and associated
services, not including research and development.


                 INSTALLED MW
                    Projected
               1991  1992  1993
---------------------------------
Denmark         418   470   520
Netherlands      83   116   120
Germany          90   170   220
United Kingdom   10    30   131
Spain            15    45    57
Belgium           6     6     6
Italy             5     6    20
Greece            5    26    26
Portugal          2     2     2
Sweden            8    12    12
France            1     1     2
Ireland                 7     8
---------------------------------
Total           643   890  1123
MW Installed/yr 166   247   234

1992 Paul Gipe/AWEA
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . 
                                                                               
----
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: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 04:55:40 GMT


According to the California Public Utilities Commission, 
a little over 1% of California's electricity is produced by wind turbines.
These systems remained profitable even after the tax subsidy went away.
Owners report downtimes had been overestimated by 10 times or more: wind
machines have proven more reliable than their proponents dared to hope.
The economic cost of wind-generated electricity in California is under
10 cents/kW-hour.  The part of the cost of nuclear electricity in
California that we currently pay is about 11.5 cents.  Not to mention the
costs our children and their children will continue to pay.

Do you think nuclear plants would be profitable without the Price-Anderson
insurance subsidy?  Without the waste disposal avoidance subsidy?
Without the rate-payer cost overrun subsidy?
I question the motivations of those who continue to claim, despite the data
to the contrary, that nuclear electicity makes economic sense.

In article <1993Jan8.165200.26362@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>Let's see-
>
>            $492 billion             (solar,wind money)
>            ------------    <<       ------------------
>    20% of U.S. electricity        0.01% of U.S. electricity?
>
>Tino

Cameron Spitzer in San Jose, Ca.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:20:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.213932.12271@apgea.army.mil> jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil (Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.220713.8624@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>I have seen studies showing wind resources as contour maps with the
>>contours indicating percentage of local electricity energy
>>available in wind form.  Much of the high plains was at 1000% so it
>>has plenty to export.  By comparison California, with most of the
>>
>1000% of next-to-nothing is still not much.  
>
>J. Matthews

Its still not a trivial amount.  We aren't just talking about North
Dakota here.  It may not be enough to supply the eastern seaboard, but
it could make a big dent in consumption in the upper midwest, which is
close enough to overcome transmission problems.
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kevinc@solman.kpc.com (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:03:47 GMT

In article <16219@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, daryl@bovill.auspex.com (Daryl Starr) writes:
|> But, let's get on with the next problem which
|> is angular inertia of the flywheel. Imagine attempting to accelerate a vehicle
|> using the kinetic engergy of the flywheel. This means changing the speed of the
|> flywheel to transfer kinetic energy to forward motion of the vehicle. The only
|> problem is that the inertia of the flywheel attempts to spin the car on a
|> vertical axis as well. This might prove manageable under ideal driving conditions

Reality check time.  Spin-up and spin-down torque is not a problem.  The
torque introduced on the flywheel is easily calculated:
T = K*P/R, where T is torque, P is power, R is the rotational
speed, and K is a fudge factor to get the units right.
For T measured in foot-pounds, P measured in horsepower, and R measured in RPM,
K is 5250.

So, let's say we have a car which is withdrawing 100 horsepower from the
flywheel.  With conversion losses, that might produce 50 horsepower to the
wheels.  Also, let's say the speed of the flywheel is 20,000 RPM.  This
means that the torque on the flywheel is 5250*100/20,000 = 26.25 foot-pounds.

By comparison, my old Buick engine produced 425 peak foot-pounds of torque.
It didn't seem to be much of a problem.  I could, however, get it rocking
back and forth pretty good while parked and rhythmically punching the throttle.

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.

-- 
Kevin Cameron

"Those who will trade essential liberty for promise of security will
 have neither" - Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.engr.civil,sci.engr.mech,sci.environment
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Energy Weekly
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:20:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

RS>> Generation of 2,000 kWh/kW is representative of the performance of
RS>> a well-sited wind plant in California.  Better-performing turbines
RS>> both in California and on the West Cost of Denmark's Jutland
RS>> peninsula can produce up to 3,000 kWh/kW of installed capacity.
RS>> However, average performance both in California and in Denmark
RS>> typically falls below 2,000 kWh/kW.

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

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

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . 
                                                                            
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 09:28:52 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:


>Suppose the damaged stack had gone over in the wind, with some pieces
>falling on one of the containment buildings, knocking some concrete off,
>but only some chunks a foot or two deep. No breaching of the containment,
>and no real danger of it either.

>The news reports would say "Containment vessel at Turkey Point damaged",
>the layman would think that means breached, the Greenpeacers (who have
>a good presence here) would pitch their tents at the plant entrance and
>the plant would be years, if ever, before splitting atoms again.

While I don't disagree with the predicted media and political reactions,
at some point in time, someone's going to have to say "f*ck the lay 
opinions when making these decisions."  The health equivalent would
be to ban blood donations because of some small segment of the population's
irrational fear that AIDS can be caught during donations.  It, like
fear of nuclear power, is thoroughly irrational and not based on fact 
but it won't go away.  Even if one does not want to say f*ck it, 
the problem still remains of how to pick what irrationality will pop
up next.

As far as a falling brick causing damage, remember the containment is
designed to withstand everything from an airliner crash on down.
When the terrorists fired anti-tank missiles into the 
French Super Phoenix, the explosions only chipped out a couple of inches
of concrete.   The brick is not very aerodynamic and thus its terminal
velocity - if it could be achieved in the distance involved - would be
fairly low.

The concrete used in containment and other safety
structures is fairly special and not like anything you're liable to run
into elsewhere.  TVA pioneered a process for using fly ash as an additive
to increase the strength and make it resilliant.  I believe this process
was used for most NP construction.  At Sequoyah, during the interminable
rip-outs-and-redos in an attempt to chase the ever-moving NRC regs,
I watched workers trying to break out this concrete.  Jackhammer
bits would bury up in it without causing cracking.  When hit with a
hammer, the blow was highly damped with no bounce.  Amazing stuff.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 06:44:45 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:


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


Visit a plant sometime and observe the construction and you will understand
just how "lucky" TP was.  Not meaning to sound smart-assed with that
suggestion, simply suggesting a fact-finding trip.  

I don't know what the USAF does but for nuclear power plants, its design
must be able to withstand a wide variety of design-basis insults.
These include the effects of the worst 100-years flood, earthquake,
tornado, hurricane and anything else deemed credible.  Not only
must all safety related structures withstand the wind forces, it
must also withstand wind-propelled missile impact.  The worst threat
is generally considered to be a telephone pole propelled at maximum
wind velocity.  The telephone pole turns out to be the worst in terms
of objects likely to withstand being accelerated by the wind, in
terms of ballistic coefficient, and in terms of its penetrative ability
on impact.

The end result of all this is walls constructed of several feet of
concrete.  At Sequoyah, for example, the aux building (where all
ex-containment safety related equipment resides) walls are 6 feet 
thick, the diesel generator building walls are 6 feet thick and 
the containment is constructed of several walls of concrete and steel
and inside that is is the many-feet-thick (~20) missile shield that
protects the primary system and instrumentation.

Bottom line, the reason the TP plant, anthromorphicly speaking, yawned
at the hurricane was not luck but design.  There WAS an environmental
incident at TP during the hurricane.  About 10,000 gallons of fuel
oil was spilled from a non-safety-related storage tank.

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: CAD@link.mordovia.su (Vladimir F. Beloff)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Help to find colleagues!!
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:37:07 +0300
Distribution: world
Organization: Paramike Taranty Ltd.
Reply-To: CAD@link.mordovia.su
Keywords: Electromagnetic Compatibility

Hello all!
Is anybody deals with the problem of Electric Systems'
Electromagnetic Compatibility?
Thanks, Vladimir