HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  -
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:48:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

PD>I believe this is incorrect.  If energy had indeed become scarce, we
PD>should have seen an increase in the relative price of energy vs. other
PD>goods and services.  Energy prices would therefore rise more than the
PD>average rate of inflation.

PD>Economics 101 would tell you that inflation is caused by excessive
PD>increases in the supply of money.

I'm aware of that explanation, but have always taken it with a touch of
salt, like the "trickle down" theory. It can't be just that simple.
Energy is a major component of goods and services; and, if there is a
jump in the cost of energy, then virtually all costs are going to
increase. Prices rose dramatically during and soon after the 1974 oil
embargo, if my memory serves me correctly.

Let's just say I concede your point. This newsgroup is about energy,
not economics. But then again the two subjects are so very intertwined.

BTW, "Windpower Monthly" reports that Hyrenco, a company that is part of
the "giant Begerman group of the Netherlands", owner of several European
wind companies, is setting up a demonstration where 40% of the
electricity from a 220 KW wind turbine on their Zeebrugge wind farm in
Belgium will be used to produce hydrogen by electrolysis. The hydrogen,
in turn, will be used to produce heat and power when there is no wind
and indirectly to produce drinking water. They also talk of using fuel
cells to convert the hydrogen back into electricity when needed. Their
plan is to sell turn-key systems in the world market.

Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation announced some time ago they were
building a large facility in the San Francisco Bay area to convert
natural gas into electrical power using fuel cells. The natural gas is
already piped from Texas. The by-products of the process are drinking
water and CO2.

Hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells are used on the Space Shuttle as the main
source of electrical power, and the two by-products are drinking water
and efficency.

Battelle Memorial Institute reports that there is more than enough
harvest-ible windpower in just 12 midwest states to supply more than the
electrical power needs of the country.

So you can see that the awareness of these existing technologies is
coming together in such a timely, cost effective, and environmentally
sound fashion that we will probably kiss costly nuclear power with it's
baggage of hysteria (deserved or not) a fond farewell.

Fusion? Who needs it?

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
                                                              
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: int493b@mdw012.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr R.T. O'Sullivan)
Subject: Aluminium
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:32:23 GMT

This may ( and probably will) soung completely crazy but I was wondering if there
may be some way to burn aluminium or other metals as a cheep ( as opposed to 
environmentally friendly) energy source.  Perhaps aluminium cans or something.

Ramon.
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  -
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:40:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: WINCO

In article <2865.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:


>Battelle Memorial Institute reports that there is more than enough
>harvest-ible windpower in just 12 midwest states to supply more than the
>electrical power needs of the country.
>
>So you can see that the awareness of these existing technologies is
>coming together in such a timely, cost effective, and environmentally
>sound fashion that we will probably kiss costly nuclear power with it's
>baggage of hysteria (deserved or not) a fond farewell.
>
>Fusion? Who needs it?

I would feel more comfortable about the wind-power resources of the 12
midwestern states if an environmental impact analysis were available.

The potential environmental and economic costs might be significant. 
The details of such projections can be tricky.  Would they be placed on
private or public lands?  In whose backyard?  At what cost to our
feathered friends?  With what kind of maze of electrical cabling,
transformer, and distribution facilities?  What energy storage
capability will be required for periods of relative calm?

Details, details.  They do have a way of rounding the edges of our
visions of utopia.
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:28:40 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Sep14.024354.24129@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>assuming the primary energy is replaced by PV electricity 1 for 1,
>we'd naively need to cover 2% of the country with collectors.  This is
>small compared to the area covered by, say, farms.

Or rooftops :-)  (I know, I know)
>
>Module efficiency does affect balance of system costs (supports,
>installation, etc.)  DOE thinks 15% efficiency is the goal to shoot
>for for flat plate collectors.

15% Is easy for production panels, most monocrystalline cells are 14%
currently, with peaks as high as 17% for a type that uses imbedded
electrodes.

In context of the original poster,  false or old information is often
the reason behind many peoples misperception of solar power.  A lot of
people got heavily into it in the 70's when it was still very very
young.  It's many times more viable and efficient now than it was
then, and it continues to get even more so.


-- 
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
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:30:35 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <52907@dime.cs.umass.edu:, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
: In article <1992Sep3.133036.25840@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
: >the last century of so, you'd likewise find few who outright expressed a
: >fear of technology.  Unless, of course, you looked deeper.
: And what about if you looked "deeper" into the motives of those who
: are against wind and solar technolgies? 

Are you infering that those who are pro nuclear are anti wind and solar?  About
20 years ago my dad and I were using a solar powered air pump for fishing bait.
Back in Trenton I was for the windmill power for the "Trenton Makes" sign, and
was sorely disappointed when the thing constantly broke.  But I still say that
nuclear power is the best option for the next 20 to 50 years at the minimum
assuming the pipe dream of fusion ever comes to furition.

: >As for sincerity -- when you hear some of the most disgusting lies and
: >half-truths about the availability of waste disposal technology, the 
: >toxicity of Plutonium, the abilities of plant operators, the integrity
: >of pool storage, the effects of TMI, and even the facts of documented
: >historical events which any child could look up, coming from the mouths
: >of supposed scientists, you start to wonder about that too.
: Gosh, it must be a conspiracy. Quick, let's get the disinterested 
: scientists and public relations experts from GE and B&W to help rescue
: us from these dangerous forces.

Earlier this week I heard someone on Nightline *AGAIN* hype the thoroughly
discredited notion that plutonium was the most toxic substance known to
mankind.  I was thoroughly disappointed at Koppel not pointing out that
this was not true.  But then the show had two anti nuke people and no
pro nuke or even neutral parties, so I guess this is "Politically
Correct debating".

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Running out of cheap energy?
Date: 9 Sep 92 06:55:30 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Someone recently sent me a comment stating that the world was soon going to run
out of cheap energy sources.  I've seen/heard similar comments elsewhere, but
never really thought about them.  Now I did think about it, and I don't agree
with that idea.

We may lose convenient fossil fuels, but the alternate sources that will become
worthwhile to develop will probably end up being cheaper than our present
sources.  Coal and oil are "cheap" in terms of initial technological
development required; primitive man could have used it.  A multi-layered
single-crystal solar cell or breeder reactor requires more investment in
developing the technology, but the energy available from those technologies
will likely be cheaper and more plentiful.

It's a similar situation with metal ores.  We've used up many of the really
rich, convenient ore bodies.  Is the price of metal going up due to that?  No,
now that we must use ore bodies with a few percent of the concentration of
metal found in those rich ores, the prices of the refined metal has gone down,
and is still going down.  The difference is the investment in technology.  When
today's ore bodies run out, we'll probably develop technologies for mining
space ores or extracting metal from really low concentrations (seawater,
ordinary rock) or tapping magma directly...and the prices of metal will drop
even more.

We can't sit back, simply waiting for prices of metal or energy to drop; we
have to be aware of the rising costs of those products using present
technology, and invest in the technologies of the future.
--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  -
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:40:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

CJL>In article <2865.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howar
CJL>th)  writes:
CJL>>Battelle Memorial Institute reports that there is more than enough
CJL>>harvestable windpower in just 12 midwest states to supply more than
CJL>>the electrical power needs of the country.

CJL>>So you can see that the awareness of these existing technologies is
CJL>>coming together in such a timely, cost effective, and
CJL>>environmentally sound fashion that we will probably kiss costly
CJL>>nuclear power with it's baggage of hysteria (deserved or not) a
CJL>>fond farewell.

CJL>Hmmm.  How "enironmentally sound" would it be to harvest all the harvestibl
CJL>windpower in those 12 midwest states?  I guess "environmentally sound" simp
CJL>means low-technology to you, right?

Gee! I guess your right. If we used up all the wind by harvesting it, we
wouldn't have any to blow the smog away from the automobiles and
fossil-fueled power plants in and around our cities, but then again the
radioactive pollution from accidents like Chernobyl would not be so
widespread. Though it would sort of take the fun out sailing and Chicago
would lose its distinctiveness.

Your right! farmers should leave all that un-cultivated land around the
edges of their farms pristine and forego all the income from those nasty
wind turbines. The wealth would only spoil them.

Speaking of low tech, I learned to how to make an atomic power plant in
my first hour in college, an 8 AM Chemistry 1A class in September 1941,
yes, 1941. The grad student instructor, a Mr. Robinsom, also told us how
to make an atomic bomb. The Rosenbergs were executed many years later
for allegedly passing the same information to the Russians.

However, the level of technology involved in fabricating an efficient,
300 KW, solid state cyclo-converter that would fit in the trunk of my
car would bring a few whistles of disbelief from Enrico Fermi, if he
were still around.

By the way, you misspelled "environmentally" in your message.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . This tagline stolen by Silly Little Mail Reader!
                                                                                                     
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: thad@lever.asd.sgi.com (Thad Beier)
Subject: Cheap PV cells
Reply-To: thad@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:24:43 GMT

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
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.

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

-- 
Thad Beier..Silicon Graphics..415)390-1028..thad@sgi.com..C-172A N7770T.....FLY!
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (Appropriate Technology)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 02:33:36 GMT

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

I have a problem with people who haven't the background (or even taken the  
time to learn the fundamental) knowledge claiming to speak on behalf of 
mankind.

Whose lies are harming the most people? Well, in some places in this world,
irrational fears about radiation have hurt many people. For example:

An American LWR constructed in the Phillipines is still not being allowed to
go on-line. The citizens are currently allowed 10 hours of electricity a day.

Irrational fears about irradiated food keep this completely safe technology
from the shelves.

Italy's choice to ban ALL nuclear plants after the Chernobyl accident has
caused them to become electricity-dependent on other European countries,
driving their rates up.

Sweden has come to realize that if they turn off the nuclear plants, like
the public demanded, they'll be without 65% of their electricity. That's a
bit too much of a burden for conservation techniques.


I think that the first step is basic, fundamental knowledge. Irradiated food
will NOT kill you, it's actually good for you. Bananas are radioactive (very
slightly) but they will NOT kill you, they're good for you. Etc.

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: gay@selkirk.sfu.ca (Ian D. Gay)
Subject: Re: electrical generation unit VAR?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:51:08 GMT

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


>What exactly is a var?  From context of the guide's talk, I  

volt.ampere reactive. I.e. the product of the voltage and the 90 deg 
out of phase component of the current (or vice versa).
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 04 Sep 92 11:25 PDT
Subject: Re: Wind Farms  (was: Re: rad
Nf-ID: #R:2819.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com:-1513970093:cdp:1466300079:000:1551
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Sep  4 11:25:00 1992


<responding to Howard Smith's comments>

>But the New Deal came along and established the the Rural Electrifi-
>cation Authority (REA) which financed the building of a vast distri-
>bution system which hooked the farms up to the grid to the great
>benefit of the coal industry and coal fired utilities. The windpower >industry sorta dried up. However, these types of small systems are
>still available for use in very remote areas.

Actually, they can make economic sense even in less remote areas today
if your power prices or wind speeds are high (i.e., they need not be
considered solely for off-grid use).  Bergey Windpower, in "Wind
Turbines for the Home," says, "As a general rule of thumb, we recommend
that you have at least a 10 mph average annual wind speed and be paying
at least 10 cents/kWh" to consider a small wind system.

>With that background and the fact that most farms and ranches still use
>wind pumps to obtain water from an aquifer, there will be little
>cultural resistance to windfarms now that they have become competitive,
>especially when the farmers can earn a bundle harvesting the wind and
>still have their land available for agriculture.

Yes, I think this is correct.  Windfarms, so far, have been quite
popular where the local economy is poor, not so popular where they are
near the residences of the wealthy.

*******************************************************************
Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org    UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!tgray

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  -
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:37:56 GMT

In article <2865.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
>Battelle Memorial Institute reports that there is more than enough
>harvest-ible windpower in just 12 midwest states to supply more than the
>electrical power needs of the country.
>
>So you can see that the awareness of these existing technologies is
>coming together in such a timely, cost effective, and environmentally
>sound fashion that we will probably kiss costly nuclear power with it's
>baggage of hysteria (deserved or not) a fond farewell.

Hmmm.  How "enironmentally sound" would it be to harvest all the harvestible
windpower in those 12 midwest states?  I guess "environmentally sound" simply
means low-technology to you, right? 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:32:25 GMT

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? 

trish
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:22:12 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

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? 

Solar power takes many forms. In the form of passive solar space heating,
it is quite cost effective in many climates. In the form of active solar
water heating, it's cost effective in many areas. In the form of food
preparation, solar drying and cooking, it's viable in many areas. 

In the area of solar electric power, if the power demand is not too
great, can stand interruptions, or is far from the grid, then solar
photovoltaic generation is viable today. If the demand is for large
amounts of power on an uninterrupted basis, at night, then solar
electric power is not viable in most cases today. A high capacity
solar installation, with adequate storage for nightime and extended 
overcast periods, is expensive, but, so is the extension of the grid 
to isolated locations.

In most situations sun outages are frequent enough that auxillary
backup systems are required. From wood stoves to diesel generators,
some backup system is almost always warranted when solar power is
contemplated as the primary energy source. Depending on fuel cost,
the auxillary may be more cost effective than the primary solar
installation in some cases, but there are situations where delivered
fuel cost exceeds solar capital cost today.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy,misc.consumers
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:23:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.182307.12532@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>      possible threats.  In this thread,  we have been treated to this
>      assertion as well as the assertion that there is no lower limit to 
>      a harmful 'dose'.

This assertion is correct, however.  Similarly, it can be said that there
is no lower limit to a harmful dose of perhaps 5 million organic compounds.
This depends greatly on how you define "harmful".

What *does* matter when determining "harmful dose" is whether the effect
is measurable.  This is probably why Dale claims there is a lower limit
to a harmful dose.  Below some level, it's indistinguishable from any
unexposed person.  If it's not measurable, is it something to worry about?

BTW folks, I assume you realize that you're subjected to (on average)
around 200 milliRems/year of "harmful radiation".  Most of this is
from "background" (it would still be there, even if we never knew about
nuclear bombs/reactors).

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:12:01 GMT

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.

There are certain limited exceptions, but you are basically correct.
Sunlight is a very diffuse resource and collecting it and transmitting
it to where it can be used is very expensive.  Certain people have a
romantic attachment to the idea thaht blinds them to the facts (say, Al
Gore for example). Solar power is OK as an assist for heating water in
certain circumstances, but beyond that and powering calculators and 
remote weather stations, solar power is pretty useless compared to the
alternatives.

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.energy