HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:27:12
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
Distribution: world
	<24884@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov's message of 24 Jul 1992 23:40:44 GMT

In article <24884@dog.ee.lbl.gov> b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:

   In article <1992Jul24.043949.5135@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
   writes:
   |> 
   |> Industrial energy demand makes up two thirds of total US energy consumption.
   |> Reducing that 75% with homeowner tricks is not likely to be very successful.
 

   According to the Department of Energy, in 1988 (the latest year I
   have immediately handy) industrial energy use was about 36% of
   the total.

Rule of thumb is 1/3 each household/office consumption,
transport and industry.

   Luckily, we don't have to use homeowner tricks on industry -- we
   can use industry tricks and do quite well.

capital costs are serious obstacle in converting to best available
technology in industry, especially with current accounting rules.
I'd hazard that the greatest gains are to be made in transport,
but there progress seems to require a breakthrough...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Why must you record my phonecalls?     			*
*  Are you planning a bootleg LP? ...				*
*  I dread to think what the future will be			*
*  When we're living in gangster time        Specials, 1979	*
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling for real?
Date: 22 Jul 92 08:08:48 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>	Yes,  but that's just the high level waste.  Properly processed,
>it can be reduced to a nice little volume of heavily radioactive stuff that
>we can afford to spend a good deal per unit volume or mass to get rid of,
>simply because there isn't very much of it.  Yet,  we also produce medium-
>and low- level wastes from different steps in the processing and handling of
>nuclear materials,  as well as from the decomissioning of reactors.  Because
>there is much more low-level waste,  it is actually a more serious disposal
>problem than the high-level waste.


No it's not.  Low Level NOS waste is harmless by definition.  Try reading
the regulations some time.  The stuff that gets planted at places
like Barnwell would much better be incinerated. The VAST bulk of 
the NOS waste coming from nuclear plants is mildly or potentially 
contaminated paper and cloth.  Proper health-physics procedures dictate
that any material that has been in a controlled area be disposed of in
rad waste.  Some plants try to segregate the clean and hot waste but 
most don't find it economically beneficial.  The econazis, of course,
shriek at the mere thought of burning paper or cloth in an incinerator
so all this stuff gets barreled up, trucked to places like Barnwell and
planted.  What a waste.

Mid-level waste can easily be concentrated with a combination of chemical
and combustion processing.  Chem-nuclear is an example of a company 
that has a very efficient process that has been developed for at 
least 10 years.  Again, because of the zealotry of you fellows who 
don't have much of a clue about the stuff but nontheless make lots 
of noise, this stuff is getting buried in other sections of places
like Barnwell.

Repeat after me 1000 times.  This is a POLITICAL problem.  The technology
was developed decades ago.  POLITICAL, not technical. Remember that.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:3676 talk.environment:2980
From: Rodger_Madison@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Pioneer Project: Solar Hydrogn Power
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:52:16 GMT
Organization: The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California

In article <JMC.92Jul23212906@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> How will the cost of solar produced hydrogen compare with the
> cost of nuclear produced hydrogen.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

I would guess that on a small scale it is almost certainly cheaper.

I wonder myself about the chemistry of the fuel cells.  I seem to recall
hearing on one the Shuttle (or perhaps even Apollo) related broadcasts,
that some of the materials in fuels cell (presumably catalysts) are
potentially toxic.  Does anyone out there know how they work, what they
contain, service life, disposal procedures, etc?

     Rodger
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: how much of spent fuel can be recycled
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:41:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.045149.5860@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>I found the article!  "The Disposal of Radioactive Wastes from Fission
>Reactors", by Benard L. COhen, Scientific American, June 1977, page 21.
>The before graphic has 96.7% U238 and 3.3% Uranium 235.  After 3 years
>in the reactor, 94.3% uranium 238, 0.8% uranium 235, 0.89% plutonium
>isotopes.  There are 3.5% fission products, and the remainder comprised
>of various heavy isotopes.  Please note this apparently assumes once
>through as opposed to steady state recycling.  And apparently these are
>from LWR reactors as opposed to breeder reactors.  If you reycle only
>the uranium, the mass of high level waste drops to less than 5% of
>the original mass.  (Units are given in weight, not volume.)
>
>Does anyone have more up to date data or data for continously recycled
>uranium/plutonium in breeder reactors?

If the geometry was compatible for the bundles, you could probably recycle
the spent LWR bundles in a DU reactor (CANDU) with no reprocessing necessary;
although, you might have to slightly poison the reaction to account for the
extra fissionables.  If you are really careful, you can also increase the
ammount of plutonium in the bundles for later reprocessing.

The DU stands for Depleted Uranium, the only reason that CANDU reactors run
at all is that they are very neutron efficient.
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: 'Micro Power' generators?
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:30:39 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Jul24.112006.1@max.u.washington.edu> games@max.u.washington.edu writes:
>In article <28389@goofy.Apple.COM>, ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>> A couple of friends are in wheel chairs.  From time to time they
>> run out of juice.  I've often wondered about building for them
>> a small 'micro power' generator.
>> 
>I would do the same thing I do for my emergency flashlight.  Use solar cells,
>(for the flashlight, I keep it in a window constantly charging a rechargable 
>battery) and a big enough rechargable battery.  

This will cook the nicad in short order.  I've cooked several that way.

>Just stick the cells somewhere on the outside, and let them charge over time.

Where on the outside?  This isn't a house, you know ... and people don't
like to cook in the sun ...

>If the use is infrequent, 

It isn't.  Electric chairs are heavily used daily.  Almost a full
cycle every day is common.  2x/day sometimes.

>then there ought to be enough time to charge the thing
>before needing it, no matter that the charge rate is slow.

Or are you talking about an auxiliary battery?  In that case you 
could just have oversized the main battery and avoided the problem
in the first case.  I'm looking for something with a power density
greater than lead/acid.  When you run out of juice in the middle of
the intersection, you don't have time to sun yourself and get a recharge.

The idea of an auxiliary battery that can be switched in when the main
battery is dead is a good one, in that it acts as a fuel gage or spare
tank ala motorcycle.  It'd rather it just be charged with the main 
battery (a daily affair) and would really rather it have a much
higher power density than lead acid... preferable fuel driven ...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
From: howard@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil.  Was Re: Is car pooling for real? (was Re: Are 
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:16:53 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I wonder why there is not more discussion of the use of ethanol
as an alternative fuel (not methanol). There is plenty of evidence
that it works fine when mixed 10% to 90% gasoline. In Iowa, it is
possible to buy this ethanol/unleaded mix at EVERY gasoline station
in the state, and at the same price as regular unleaded. Therefore, 
there is a large number of cars in Iowa who have been using this
fuel mixture for at least 4-5 years. I finally put my VW to rest
(following an accident), that had 202,000 miles on the stuff. 

There's been an ad running, by ADM, that says that this 10/90 mix
of ethanol/gasoline reduced CO2 emissions by 25% .

So why is it not being promoted more? At least we could reduce foreign
oil purchases by up to 10% . Though I agree that other technologies, 
such as solar power, should be pursued in the future, ethanol is 
available now. 

-Mary Howard
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: braking distances
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:04:40 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <ph3.711670147@unixg.ubc.ca> ph3@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Hamilton (phys 306)) writes:
>
>Not so long ago, people used to pump their brakes when they had to brake hard.
>(Man, did flashing brakelights ever get my attention, two or three cars ahead,
>even.) With the advent of ABS, the tell tale warning of a panic stop has all
>but vanished. Even people without ABS seem to just push the brakes until
>well after the wheels lock up. It seems to me that flashing brakelights for
>hard stops (maybe brakelights flash when the ABS kicks in) would be very
>helpful, because you can see hard stops a few cars ahead.

This is a very good idea. I would add one thing. I would place a loud
buzzer in the passenger compartment of vehicles that would sound continously
as long as the brakes are depressed and the vehicle is moving. That might
cure some of the idiots who drive with their foot on the brake pedal. When
you follow one of them, their brake lights are meaningless. 

Gary
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:11:59 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul24.234826.2086@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>	The same principles of efficiency that apply to residential application
>apply double to industry.  Many industrial processes can be resdesigned so
>that they use less matter and energy to attain a result.  Interestingly
>enough,  this usually results in a reduction of cost as well.
>
>	One example is the production of iron from ore.  The old process is
>the blast furnace,  and the new process is direct reduction.  One of the
>reasons that the US steel industry has not been competitive in the 80's is
>that we have so many obsolete blast furnaces.  While everyone else in the
>world is going to direct reduction,  we have so much blast furnace capacity
>that we can't justify adding new plant in our financial climate.

Direct reduction furnaces won't work with pure ore, they require some
scrap as well. That's not much of a problem, recycling is generally 
good, but certain grades of steel are very difficult to produce this
way. New plant financing *is* a major problem.

>	Similarly,  it takes much less energy to recycle alumnium than it
>does to extract it from ore.  Without recycling,  alumnium cans are
>environmentally awful containers.  Yet,  recycling gets them out of landfills
>and hopefully out of the sidewalks and also cuts the energy use in making
>the next batch of cans by a factor of 20.  It also costs less to recycle it.

Alcoa is aggressive about this. The limiting factor now is consumer
resistance to recycling the cans. Separation from trash is not profitable.
The consumer has to get involved.

>	If we made resource efficiency an important national priority,  rather
>than the reduction of labor cost,  we would discover opportunities for
>efficiency that we don't even imagine now.

Labor *is* the largest cost for manufacturing and distribution. To stay
economically viable after trading reduced energy usage for more labor,
labor hourly rates would have to be reduced to third world levels. I
don't think that policy would fly for long among the electorate. The
reason US labor can receive high wages is that their productivity per
worker is leveraged by high energy usage.

Gary
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation
Date: 24 Jul 1992 23:40:44 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: world
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <1992Jul24.043949.5135@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
writes:
|> 
|> Industrial energy demand makes up two thirds of total US energy consumption.
|> Reducing that 75% with homeowner tricks is not likely to be very successful.
|> 
|> Gary

According to the Department of Energy, in 1988 (the latest year I
have immediately handy) industrial energy use was about 36% of
the total.

Luckily, we don't have to use homeowner tricks on industry -- we
can use industry tricks and do quite well.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: What I've done to my house (conservation)
Date: 24 Jul 1992 16:28:04 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ems@michael.apple.com's message of 14 Jul 92 06:57:26 GMT

=o= I have a few random comments.

> Several brands of CF bulbs were tried.  The 'rejects' (start
> up flicker, didn't really fit in the fixture as claimed/ex-
> pected, hummmmmed, bad color) were sent out to the garage
> fixtures . . . or the yard light string . . .

=o= I have some of these in closets.  The flicker is a problem
with the ballast, of course -- it's eliminated with the newer
model solid state ones.  The best light I've seen is from
Osram's bulbs.

=o= I've fixed a few "bad light" CF bulbs by putting them in
yellowy light globes.

=o= I can't seem to find any good solid state ballasts that
don't have bulbs "built in."  When the bulb burns out I hope
I'll be able to replace them with Phillips fixtures to hold
reusable Osram bulbs!

> The 'fridge and lighting change have cut our electricity bill
> by at least 1/2 . . .

=o= With an efficient 'fridge and CFs, I've got mine down to
below the minimum monthly charge!

> About 4 years ago we added a 65w Sodium Vapor yard light over
> the garage door/front yard/street.  This was after my wife had
> her car stereo 'boosted' in our driveway.

=o= You can get a motion-detecting infrared thingy that will use
fewer watts and only turn the 65w sucker on if there's somebody
near the car.  If you go this route, please be sure to keep the
motion detection from going out into the sidewalk or street.  A
sudden flareup of bright light is very painful on a pedestrian's
eyes, and it could be dangerous to flash such a thing at someone
who's driving by!

> What with water heating becoming a major fact in the power
> bill, . . .

=o= Have you got one of those insulated water heater blankets?
They make a difference.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:48:26 GMT

	The same principles of efficiency that apply to residential application
apply double to industry.  Many industrial processes can be resdesigned so
that they use less matter and energy to attain a result.  Interestingly
enough,  this usually results in a reduction of cost as well.

	One example is the production of iron from ore.  The old process is
the blast furnace,  and the new process is direct reduction.  One of the
reasons that the US steel industry has not been competitive in the 80's is
that we have so many obsolete blast furnaces.  While everyone else in the
world is going to direct reduction,  we have so much blast furnace capacity
that we can't justify adding new plant in our financial climate.

	Similarly,  it takes much less energy to recycle alumnium than it
does to extract it from ore.  Without recycling,  alumnium cans are
environmentally awful containers.  Yet,  recycling gets them out of landfills
and hopefully out of the sidewalks and also cuts the energy use in making
the next batch of cans by a factor of 20.  It also costs less to recycle it.

	If we made resource efficiency an important national priority,  rather
than the reduction of labor cost,  we would discover opportunities for
efficiency that we don't even imagine now.



--
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: What I've done to my house (conservation)
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:14:42 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <Jym.24Jul1992.9am3@naughty-peahen.org> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

>=o= I can't seem to find any good solid state ballasts that
>don't have bulbs "built in."  When the bulb burns out I hope
>I'll be able to replace them with Phillips fixtures to hold
>reusable Osram bulbs!

Try the Lights of America bulbs.  It's proprietary, but replaceable.

>> About 4 years ago we added a 65w Sodium Vapor yard light over
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> the garage door/front yard/street.  This was after my wife had
>> her car stereo 'boosted' in our driveway.
>
>=o= You can get a motion-detecting infrared thingy that will use
>fewer watts and only turn the 65w sucker on if there's somebody

Notice that it is a Sodium Vapor light.  These start up VERY SLOWLY.
It wouldn't be lit by the time it went out again...

>=o= Have you got one of those insulated water heater blankets?
>They make a difference.

Yes, i do have one.

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:39:49 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <13659@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>
>> Do you realize how much sunny area will be needed to run heavy industry day
>> in and day out?
>
>dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) just posted some figures for possible energy
>savings using currently available technology.  This was 44% to 75%.
>
>That is for "currently available" technology.  I doubt that that applies to
>some of the energy-intensive operations of old industries.  For example, the
>steel industry uses large amounts of energy to heat the metal, then large
>amounts of water to cool it.  How many of those foundries recovered that
>energy?  It would be possible, though probably prohibitively expensive, to
>smelt and forge that steel in a closed heat cycle, using high temperature heat
>exchangers, etc.  Perhaps when energy costs rise (due to environmental
>factors), those companies will implement that technology and find that they can
>produce their product cheaper and at higher quality than before.  I'm sure
>there are lots of industries which are simply dumping energy as heat because
>they designed their factories when energy was cheap.

While it's true that most US steel mills are old and obsolete, I would
note that the coke used in blast furnaces supplies more than just heat.
It is also chemically part of the refining process. Steel plants use
water to cool the *rollers* in the mill, but try to keep the ingots as
hot as possible during the rolling process. Steel isn't water quenched
unless a specific tempering process is required. Normally it is necessary
for the steel to cool slowly so that the grain structure supports easy
machining. Therefore recapturing process heat isn't very practical.
By contrast, the aluminum refining industry is very conscious of energy
consumption and plants are designed to minimize losses. Yet aluminum
refining is still a major industrial consumer of electricity, much larger
than the steel industry.

Industrial energy demand makes up two thirds of total US energy consumption.
Reducing that 75% with homeowner tricks is not likely to be very successful.

Gary
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: 'Micro Power' generators?
Date: 16 Jul 92 21:41:11 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

A couple of friends are in wheel chairs.  From time to time they
run out of juice.  I've often wondered about building for them
a small 'micro power' generator.

It would be nice to generate about 100w of power for about an hour.

The problems:  It has to be SAFE.  starting a fire under a wheelchair
bound person isn't a good idea.

It has to be self starting by pushing a button.  Folks in chairs often
can't yank on a pull cord...

It has to interface to the (sometimes) arcain power plumbing of chairs.
(sometimes there are two batteries that are variously in parallel or
 series depending on what is needed at the time...)

It has to be modestly quit and not emit lots of toxic crap.

It has to sit quietly unused for a year, then work reliable.

It has to be small enough and light enough to stick it on a chair
with all the other stuff.

The idea of a very small fuel cell is attractive.  The idea of an
aluminum/air battery is attractive.  The idea of a tinsy tiny little
motor/generator is humorous.

What would you do to solve this problem?

-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Subject: Re: Energy Conservation
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:31:41 GMT



There is a lot that could be done using the vast quantities of low grade waste  
heat that industrial processes turn out.

The two big users would be domestic hot water/heating and greenhouse heating.
The first use would be for industry that is located near cities, however City  
of Edmonton was considering moving 80 degree water from their coal fired power  
plant to the downtown core for heating.  That was a distance of 50 miles, and  
in a climate where pipes have to be put deep underground.  

Despite crossing a river, the proposition looked feasable, but they couldn't  
interest enough commercial buildings downtown to make the conversion.

For rural industries (Paper mills, power generators, etc) coupling the industry  
to a pond (for smoothing variation) and a series of greenhouses looks quite  
attractive.  In this climate commercial greenhouses can operate only about 6  
months out of the year, and three of those months are pretty expensive.   
Getting low cost heat could make these quite viable, particularly in areas  
further north where produce is very expensive due to transport costs.