HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Eldred)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:26:11 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

In article <1992Sep12.193225.27592@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>I've always been taught and read that solar power is too inefficient to
>be used as a power source beyond subsidization of other power.
>
>	I'm also aware that it's quite cost-inefficient.
>
>Can anyone change my viewpoint? 
>
How about this:

1.  The main material (silicon) is easily available in abundant supply
without requiring drilling, strip mining, disposal of toxic waste, etc.

2.  Solar cells are indeed cost-inefficient to make at present, but
apparently only due to labor-intensive manufacturing methods.  There
are no fundamentally expensive processes involved.  In particular, the
heat required to melt the silicon can be recycled in an efficient
manufacturing plant.  Mass production has a wonderful way of reducing
the cost of products to the point where packaging, advertising and
distribution become the dominent costs.

3.  Who cares if solar power is inefficient if it is free?

4.  The country with cheap energy has a competitive advantage in the
world.  

5.  The CCC helped to pull the country out of depression in the 30's.
In the meanwhile, the country got a terrific network of highways and
hydroelectric plants which we all still benefit from.
I propose a similar program to manufacture solar cells and plaster
every roof in the sun belt with them, both to provide jobs and to promote
this country's future.  It would require strong government support in
terms of tax incentives and outright subsidies, because
industry wouldn't support it (sunlight is free; the technology is public
domain; so it's impossible to maintain a monopoly).  Indeed, it would
even take some arm twisting to get government to support it since they
would lose tax revenue.

6.  Plus all the usual benefits of solar energy--reduced pollutants,
no global warming gasses, etc.

	- Dan
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nortwest Industrial Energy Forum
Keywords: Industrial, Energy, Northwest, USA
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 20:25:51 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Where was this conference's call for papers issued?

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:15:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.183211.11604@sco.com> evanh@sco.COM (Tacobell's Cannon) writes:

>>If you are refering to the Luz plants, note that with the financing
>>available to utilities and no tax breaks, they would produce
>>electricity for about $.12/kWh.

> Do they cost more to operate than non-solar gas-burning facilities?
> If so, why?  If they don't need to burn as much gas during the day
> because they're collecting solar heat, then they should operate more
> cheaply...  unless their maintainance costs are higher or they cost a
> lot more to build.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Right the second time.  Compare the complexity, size and cost of a
collector field to that of a gas-fired boiler (or even a gas turbine)
of comparable heat rate.  The later SEGS cost about $3000/kW.  A cheap
gas turbine costs maybe $500/kW.  They run on natural gas at the SEGS
as much as they can (25% of thermal input, limited by the regulations
governing their tax breaks).  Natural gas is still pretty cheap,
especially in the summer.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: morrison@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Vance Morrison)
Subject: Re: Halogen Lights Energy Efficiency
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:51:30 GMT

In sci.energy you write:

>Is a halogen more energy than an incadescent?
>is a halogen bulb more efficient than a flourescent bulb?
>how do the three types of bulbs compare?

Technically a halogen bulb is a type of incandecent.  Basically a halogen
bulb is simply a incandencent bulb that has been designed to run at a
higher temperature (resulting in increased efficiency and whiter light).
(By the way, because of the high temeratures, halogens give off a significant
ammount of ultraviolet light, you can get sunburn from one of these lamps)
You could do this with a normal incandecent, but the bulb would not last
long.  The innovation with the halogen bulb was to make the bulb small,
and add a small amount of a halogen gas (anybody know which one?, I suspect
that it is clorine).  Now this gas is corrosive and eats a small amount of 
the filiment.  It turns out that at normal bulb temeratures, however, the
equilibrium shift in the other direction and the filiment metal is redeposited.
Since thin spots in the filiment are hotter, more metal gets deposited there, 
so the gas helps heal the filiment and so you can still get a reasonable life.

Anyway, to answer your question, halogens are more efficient, but not
amazingly so.  Something like 10%-30% more efficient.  Flourescents on
the other hand are more like 300-400% more efficient than incandecents
so clearly win when only energy efficency is of concern.  

If you don't like cool white, you CAN get flourecents with much better color
if you are willing to pay about 2-4 times as much for the bulb (you still
come out ahead in a big way).   

Vance
From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Pump info wanted
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:29:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: kakwa.1992Sep11.012933.10547
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada


I am faced with supplying an acreage with river water.  The  
problem:  The river is 200 vertical feet below me, 600 feet  
horizontally, and through most of the year carries a hefty  
load of sand.  (A conventional submersible pump destroys  
it's impellers in about 4 months)

What is the cheapest method of getting ~ 60 gph (lowest  
rate that won't freeze in winter) from this sort of supply.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn)
Subject: refridge
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:44:56 GMT

I did some calculating and I just wanted you to all get this:
 
If you purchased a wind generator or solar panels that would be fine
but your fridge would still pull the same amount of power anyway.
 
You would have to pay for more panels or whatever to run it.
 
so your FIRST purchase should be a better fridge, then get the solar and 
stuff! (if you have grid power now)
 
here's sunfrost's number (707) 822-9095
 
They have a 60W   19 cu ft  fridge thats really great!!!
 
I am not connected with them, this is just to let you know you don't
need to draw 800W to get a fridge to work!
 
ALso pick up a copy of "Home Power" you need to look for it because its
not on every shelf.
 
Nate
 
Oh, if you don't know how much your fridge draws now, SHAME ON YOU!!!

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: steveo@npd.novell.com
Subject: Re:Pump info wanted
Reply-To: steveo@npd.novell.com
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:54:16 GMT

Your best bet would be to dig a surface well next to the river, but in a
location where the river would never flood. 

To dig a surface well I have used a post hole digger. Dig to the desired
depth. Usually 20 feet. Insert a 20 foot
section of  4" PVC pipe that has been made porous. Make the pipe porous
by cutting 6" slits from five feet to the
top, to the bottom. The slits should go around the pipe and run parallel
to it. you need about 80 slits.

You will want to insert the pipe immediatly after the hole is dug 
because it will soon collapse. 

This will only work in clay soil. Too rocky and you won't be able to dig
the hole.

The post hole digger will need extensions that you add as you go deeper.

After the pipe, now called the casing , has been placed in the hole the
work has just begun. You need a trash
pump with a 2" intake to develope the well. You also need a pickup load
of 1-2" gravel.  The pump can be
obtained from a rental place.

Develop the well by pumping with the trash pump.  As you pump  the mud
out of the well, the area around the
casing will sink. Fill the void with the gravel.  You should get the
pump going at 80 gpm and run it for 24 hours.

The last well I developed this way will supply 100 gpm . I ran the trash
pump for 48 hours.

One other tip. Secure your casing in some way to prevent it from getting
sucked into the earth. I run a 8' 2x6 across
the well and bolt the middle to the casing. I have seen people develop a
well without taking this precaution. They return
in the morning and the casing has disappeared.

When you are finished, try using a pump that can handle small amounts of
sand, but I wouldn't use a sump pump.
The sump pump may get stuck in the casing over time.


Regards,
Steveo
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey)
Subject: Waste Facts
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:20:05 GMT

The following was posted in alt.cyberpunk recently.  It's an excerpt from
the speech that Bruce Sterling gave at this year's ALA conference:
 
>         We're already leaving some impressive gifts for the remote
> future of this planet. Namely nuclear wastes. We're going to be
> neatly archiving this repulsive trash in concrete and salt mines and
> fused glass canisters, for tens of thousands of years. Imagine the
> pleasure of discovering one of these nice radioactive time-bombs six
> thousand years from now. Imagine the joy of dedicated archeologists
> burrowing into one of these twentieth-century pharoah's tombs and
> dropping dead, swiftly and painfully. Gosh, thanks, ancestors.
> Thanks, twentieth century. Thanks for thinking of us.
 
Ok, as an exercise, I'd like to see how many holes sci.energy readers
can poke in this one.  It's been a long time since I reviewed my nuclear
waste info, so this should be educational. :)
 
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Ken Kirksey               | Geeks at 20 paces?  I like your style.       |      
| kkirksey@world.stKeywords: 


Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hjnorris@eos.ncsu.edu (HENRY JASON NORRIS)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Originator: hjnorris@c00045-2107bl.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: hjnorris@eos.ncsu.edu (HENRY JASON NORRIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:47:21 GMT


>>Indeed?  Have they also taken into account such things as the change in
>>reflection coefficient of the surface when you put up a large solar-based
>>plant, and how this will affect weather patterns and the greenhouse effect
>>(I expect the effect on the greenhouse effect will be pretty much negligible,
>>but I don't know if the same can be said of weather patterns)?  Have they
>>taken into account the possibility (if it cannot be called a likelihood)
>>that demand for power will increase?  Have they taken into account the
>>maintenance required for large solar arrays (most designs I've heard about
>>have to be kept clean, though this may not be true for the ones the UCS has
>>in mind, in which case this is a non-issue)?

>Seem to have.


Okay, we are all waiting....
I bet they haven't done any such thing at all.


                                                          .-.  .-.
    <hjnorris@eos.ncsu.edu)   NCSU Nuclear Engineering   /  / /  /
  |\/\/\/|                                              /  / /  /
::|      |:::Henry J. Norris:::::::::::::::::::::::::::/  / /  /::
::|  (o)(o):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(o)(o)  /:::
::C      _)::::::::::::: Who dares, Wins!::::::::::::O___    /::::
:::| `-__|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::UUUo  (:::::
              "The Past is a foreign country.
               They do things differently there."
                       -Carlos Casteneda
-- 
                                                          .-.  .-.
    <hjnorris@eos.ncsu.edu)   NCSU Nuclear Engineering   /  / /  /
  |\/\/\/|                                              /  / /  /
::|      |:::Henry J. Norris:::::::::::::::::::::::::::/  / /  /::
::|  (o)(o):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(o)(o)  /:::
::C      _)::::::::::::: Who dares, Wins!::::::::::::O___    /::::
:::| `-__|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::UUUo  (:::::
              "The Past is a foreign country.
               They do things differently there."
                       -Carlos Casteneda
From: bouchard@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Marco Bouchard ETUDIANT sept-dec 92)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: RE:electrical generation unit VAR?
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:47:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) wrote:

>Recently at a tour of the Bighorn Dam on the N.  
>Saskatchewan river, I noticed a strip chart calibrated in  
>megavars, adjacent to one calibrated in megawatts.
>
>What exactly is a var?  From context ...                     

I'll try to explain it as clairly as I can. First, var means "volt-ampere
reactive". Clearly, the electric central gives you VA (volt-ampere).You, 
as a consumer, you pay (on your bill) for watts.The VA is the hypotenuse
 of a triangle which one side of it is the watts.
So, watts= VA * cos (theta). As you might guess, 
VAR is the other side of the triangle ( VA * sin( theta) ).

In the industry, cos (theta) has to be as close as possible to unity.        
So, the VARs should not be too high. In that way, you consume most of the
power furnished by the electricity company!

   
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----------> Marco Bouchard        bouchard@ireq.hydro.qc.ca   <-------------
----------> Soyons EXPOS-itifs!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: evanh@sco.COM (Evan Hunt)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Stan's Chosen Ones
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:43:58 GMT


Don't blame me, I voted for dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz).
>If you are refering to the Luz plants, note that with the financing
>available to utilities and no tax breaks, they would produce
>electricity for about $.12/kWh.

Do they cost more to operate than non-solar gas-burning facilities?
If so, why?  If they don't need to burn as much gas during the day
because they're collecting solar heat, then they should operate more
cheaply...  unless their maintainance costs are higher or they cost a
lot more to build.

-- 
"This coffee is my blood, this breakfast burrito is my flesh.  And
 it cost me 89 cents, so get your goddamned own." - Jeff Lester, "Saint 11"
From: tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Conservation for NOx Reduction
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:25:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466300081:000:622
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Sep 11 12:25:00 1992


From: Tom Gray <tgray>
Subject: Conservation for NOx Reduction

/* Written 10:43 am  Sep 11, 1992 by judithj in cdp:en.energy */
/* ---------- "Conservation for NOx Reduction" ---------- */
I am looking for energy conservation projects which have as a primary goal the
reduction of NOx (or other) emissions (the old idea that an ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure).  I am interested in specific projects or people who m
may have done some work in this area.  If you know of anything or anyone, please
let me know who to contact for more information.  I am trying to find material 
for a seminar on this topic.  
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (Appropriate Technology)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:56:36 GMT

In article <JYM.92Sep14182006@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

>=o= Most of Mr. Whitlock's misstatements about appropriate
>technology have already been addressed.  Some of his basics
>could stand more examination.
>
>> Let's take a look at what the anti-nuclear movement pushes
>> as "appropriate technology".  According to Amory Lovins,
>> "appropriate" means simple, decentralized, easy-to-understand
>> and control, small-scale, and suited to a particular end-use.
>
>=o= I don't agree with this list.  In particular, "simple" and
>"easy-to-understand" are inaccurate.  "Easy to control" is more
>what Lovins, Karl Hess, _et_al_ are getting at.

"They are ... relatively low technology ... easy to understand and use ..."

                            -- A. Lovins, "Energy Strategy", p.77           


>=o= Most of the work done in anti-nuclear groups is volunteer.
>That which isn't, doesn't pay much.  I can't think of anyone
>who's made any amount of money in the movement who hasn't earned
>it with hard work, several times over.

Let's cut this off right here.  I'm not trying to imply, nor did I or anyone
else say, that members of anti-nuclear groups are not sincere, are not
volunteers, and do not work hard.                   

What has been said here is that *some* get paid (full-time and for speaking
engagements) and get paid well, and it has been suggested that *some* are 
not sincere, and inferred from their actions and words. 

And once again, your opionion as to whether or not they earned their dough
does not really advance the discussino.

>=o= Let's assume there really are these disgusting lies and
>half-truths.  I'm opposed to them, okay?  Now how about all the
>disgusting lies and half-truths promulgated by the industry.
>Have you nothing to say about them?  Whose lies are doing the
>most damage?  Whose lies are harming the most people?

This has been addressed well in another's response, to which I add the 
following test:

How many lives have been affected (either lost, or reduced in quality) by
the actions of the nuclear power industry?

How many lives have been affected by the actions of the anti-nuclear power 
industry?

Careful before answering -- you may have to look up the effects of fossil 
fuel burning, global food spoilage, reduced electricity reliability/supply,
etc. before doing so.

>    <_Jym_>


-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Cheap PV cells
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:05:31 GMT

In article <pjj95tc@fido.asd.sgi.com> thad@sgi.com writes:
>I have read in the popular scienceoid magazines that there have
>been breakthroughs in the cost per watt of solar cells in the last
>few years, but the price quoted by our local alternative-energy
>botiques seems completely outragous ($1200 for 55 watts in full

Yes, that's a very outrageous price.  I can get Siemans M75's (48
watt panels) for about $300. 
Current costs for PVs are about $5-6 an installed watt.  The spheral
cell technology being worked on by TI promises to bring the cost down
to $1-2 an installed watt, and is due out in 95.

>sunshine, a panel about 4 by 2 feet)  Weren't amorphous,
>polycrystalline cells supposed to be really, really cheap? (although
>not that efficient).  I've got a lot more roof space than money.

You are confusing two different types of PV technology.
Polycrystalline cells and amorphous cells are two very different
beasts.  A perusal of the magazine index at your local library will
mention hundreds of articles on both types.


>Does anybody have a list of suppliers for cheap solar cells?
>Thanks.

Go to your local newsstand, buy a copy of HomePower magazine, POB
130, Hornbrook, CA 96044-0130,  (916)-475-3179.  This is currently the
alternative-energy magazine.  They will have sources for more AE toys
than you have money for.

Another alternative is Real Goods catalog  1-800-762-7325.
They list many different types of alternative energy supplies.  Beware
they are very pricey and you can usually find better deals elsewhere.

Me?  I design and install home power systems as a hobby.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! NotIU's! #Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! #nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion#family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley)
Subject: Re: HOME ENERGY EVALUATION
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 23:31:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: home energy evaluation--many consultants do this

In article <1992Sep10.144114.16164@bnr.ca>, rmartin@crchh109.bnr.ca (Richard Martin) writes:
> 
> I am about to have a new house designed and built.  I am interested in
> information regarding tradeoffs between insulation, windows, attic ventilation,
> A/C and heating, etc.  I've heard of a so called energy audit, but don't know
> anything about it.  Is there a computer program available that one can input
> different variables, do some calculations, and then compare the outputs?
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard Martin
> ....standard disclaimer............

Study of energy management of existing bldgs and design of new ones
is a small 'industry'  There are lots of consultants who specialize
in it.  They have computers, software, data, and they do their thing
for a living.  I know one here in Los Angeles, and the name of the
business is American Energy Consultants, Inc.   and the name says it.
-- 
Charles Pooley                  ckp@netcom.com    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Wind Farms (was: Re: rad
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:44:54 GMT

In <1992Sep6.012944.13009@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>	There certainly are many applications where electric pumping has
>advantages over wind pumping.  If the pump is within,  say 100 feet of an
>electric connection,  then it makes sense to use an electric pump.  If
>the only way to the pump is to drive five miles up a BLM "primitive road"
>(or walk or ride your bike),  I think that wind pumping has a clear
>advantage.

>It's important to realize that wind and electric (and also diesel and solar)
>pumping technologies are not directly competitive.  For a African village,
>the solar-electric pump might be the best,  where for a larger installation,
>deisel might be desirable -- the wind pump might be the best to fill a
>remote stock tank,  where a farmer in Georgia might find that an electric
>pump powered from the mains is the best.

	One other factor to consider is how often that pump needs to run.
For irrigation and livestock watering in remote areas, gasoline and diesel
motors provide reliable power and are economically feasable if only used
a month or so out of the year.  Interestingly enough, I was restoring my
'52 Kaiser and found that the inline-6 flathead Continental engine still
had parts being made for it.  It's a popular motor for irrigation pumps.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: sci.energy