HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Info on the GM SE-101 Steam Car
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:20:13 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

>> The Gm SE 101 Steam Car:
>> Took 30-45 seconds to warm up.
>> 101 cubic inch 4-cylander piston steam engine
>>   160 hp.
>> Steam generator with two vortex burners and about 430 feet of finned tubing. 
>>   Produced 800 psi steam at 700 degrees F.
>> Condenser
>>   3 times the size of a regular radiator
>  
>> [stuff deleted]
>> Comments?
> 
>   Interesting stuff.  Obviously it needs more development work, but I
> think this is a more promising area than those silly electric cars.  (Sorry
> folks, I am far more suspicious of battery technology than most of you
> are.  I'll believe it when I see cheap, relatively lightweight mass-market
> batteries with energy storage comparable to a tank of gas.)
> 
> Questions that your material might be able to answer:
>  -Why did they use a piston steam engine instead of a geared-down turbine?
>   Gearing problems?  Cost of the turbine?

Would a geared-down turbine be damaged with a gear change?  This could be fixed
  with an infinietly-variable transmission.

Would a turbine be bigger and/or heavier?  You'd think it'd be cheaper, since
  they're so simple.          
Are c200 hp steam turbines currently made?  How big are the things?
 
>  -You didn't say what they used as fuel.  Propane?  Natural gas?  Seems
>   like you could use just about anything liquid or gaseous and not too
>   corrosive, which could be a big advantage.

Gasoline, I recon.  But it could burn everything.  Including hydrogen (ah!)
 
>  -Where did they get this steam engine?  I didn't realize anyone manufactured
>   piston steam engines any more.  Who built it, what does one cost, and
>   what was the intended market for it?

The GM Special Labs guys made it.  A few models of steam engines ARE still
  made, I understand, but not in sizes smaller than a clothes closet.
                                                                            
--                   
       Craig Meyer                 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: Photovoltaic enhancement
Organization: The University of Iowa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:25:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.185648.5492@slustl.slu.edu> guy@slustl.slu.edu (Guy Smith) writes:
>From: guy@slustl.slu.edu (Guy Smith)
>Subject: Photovoltaic enhancement
>Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:56:48 GMT
>A student raised the question of enhancing the power output
>of photovoltaics by using mirrors to focus sunlight on a
>panel, increasing its effective area. This could certainly
>reduce the effective cost of photovoltaics but what are
>the practical aspects of this approach. How much solar
>flux can a panel handle? would the increased heating degrade
>the panels or reduce efficiency? Other?
The collecting mirror cannot be very large because some photovoltaic
cells have very low efficiencies at high temperatures and the the ones
that work at high temperatures are more expensive. In a practical
application you will have to cool the cells. In some cases the heat
extracted from the cell might be useful. As a historical note such a system
was looked into as a power supply for deep space missions. The problem
was that if the collecting mirror was too large, they would get the 
solar cells too hot. This was the limiting factor on the mirror size and
if the space probe were more distant from the sun than Jupiter the system
could not provide the needed power. As a consequence RTGs were used instead.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
From: henigan@quando.quantum.de (Kevin Henigan)
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Organization: Quantum Software GmbH, Dortmund, Germany
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:05:58 GMT

In article <downey-131192130718@downey.ils.nwu.edu> downey@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Downey) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Nov10062745@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
>(John McCarthy) wrote:
>> Is it thought to be desirable to not use the electric grid?
>
>And then the discussion revolved around absolutes of either being "on grid"
>(supposedly getting ALL of your power from the grid) or "off grid".  
>
>Question: Isn't it possible to transfer power produced from decentralized
>systems BACK onto the grid?  I thought much of the interest in home
>generation of electricity (as opposed to home generation of heat) was that
>when you produced a surplus, you could sell it back to the grid, and when
>you operated at a deficit, you could buy from the grid -- eliminating the
>need for expensive and possibly toxic electrical storage systems.
>
>-- GREG       Practice random               ONE PENNY SHEET
>              kindness and senseless        PO BOX 641342
>              acts of beauty                Chicago IL 60664-1342

There are different ideas about this :-

One is that you don't have any batteries at all, all power generated
from the PV's on the roof is converted directly to AC and used in the
house, the surplus is put into the grid. 
When you need more power that your PV's are producing, then you take it
from the grid. 
This means that no batteries have to be installed and replaced every 5
years, so it's cheaper.
The problem is you have to have a few KW's on the roof before it's worth
selling your power, and PV's aren't too cheap.

The scheme is used in some European countries.

-- 
 Kevin Henigan. UUCP:     {backbone}!unido!quando!henigan OR henigan@quando.uucp
  Quantum GmbH  Bitnet:   henigan%quando@UNIDO(.bitnet)
    Dortmund    internet: henigan@quantum.de, or henigan@quando.quantum.de
    Germany     advert  : PEDIGREE - the only genealogy IIGS prog with a GUI
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:53:39 GMT

In article <28340@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie) writes:
> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> >Nor does burning fossil, on a longer timescale. We can't say *what* timescale
> >is the proper one to measure this. The carbon cycle isn't understood to
> >within several orders of magnitude. There is considerable evidence that
> >some of the larger CO2 sinks are inorganic. Therefore it doesn't matter
> >much whether the CO2 is generated by burning wood or coal. In fact, the
> >deforestation from burning wood changes the albedo of the Earth a measurable
> >amount and may cause more harm than burning coal. Use of fission has
> >demonstrably less damaging effect on the environment than burning wood,
> >or coal, or oil. Fusion should be even cleaner.
> 
> Two Words - Radioactive waste. Without trying to be prejudiced, it is a
> problem. Yes the effects on greenhouse gas emissions would be
> beneficial, but at what price? 

Sigh.  Another nucleophobe.  Why do people think that those two words are
enough to justify the elimination of nuclear power?

This is not an answer!

Radioactive waste is a non-problem.  Bury it in Yucca Mt.  No biggy.  Other
countries have been doing this for awhile in much less stable sites.
It really isn't a problem - where the heck do you think the nuclear fuel
comes from in the first place?  It comes out of the ground.  I mean,
for cryin' out loud, we can bury all the nuclear waste for decades in this
country in one little hill.  Compare that just to the sulfurous sludge
produced by the scrubbers on the coal plants - the volume of that stuff
in one year is tremendous.  And it gets spread all over the country.
Heck, a coal plant belches so much radioactive waste out its stacks, I
figure the amount of that is on the same order as the amount of nuclear
waste a nuclear plant produces in the same period for the same power
output.

You're worried that the burial site will remain contaminated for centuries?
Big deal.  The thousands of landfills across this country are virtually
all heavily contaminated by heavy metals (cadmium, mercury and whatnot).
Nobody seems so concerned about those, and remember - there the problem
will not decay away after a few centuries.  The heavy metals will always
be there.

People love to complain about radioactive waste, but there are no real
problems, other than the people who love to complain.  Some people seem
to need something to be afraid of and they latch onto nuclear issues
because they can't understand them.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: Blair.Haworth@launchpad.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Subject: Re: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:48:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.024339.8885@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>
>The kind of dsalination plants I am familiar with are evaporative where you
>lower the pressure in a fairly large chamber, spray heated seawater at about
>180 degrees F, and let the water flash to steam.  This is repeated in stages
>for maximum efficiency of extracting the fresh water from the brine but also
>to efficienctly use of the heat source.  Namely, the incoming sea water is
>initially heated by condensing the fresh water that flashed to steam in the
>evaporator chamber.  The residue from the first chamber is sucked into the
>next because it is kept at a lower pressure than the first, so more fresh
>water flashes in the second stage.  The resulting high density brine is pumped
>back into the ocean after going through acouple of more heat exchangers to
>give up their heat to more incoming sea water.
>
>It is plain to me that solar collectors would make *excellent* heat sources 
>for heating the sea water to the proper temperature.  But the system still 
>needs pumps to move the sea water/brine/fresh water around.  Also, air 
>ejectors are needed to lower the evaporative chambers pressure to below 
>atmospheric.  Where is the power for the pumps coming from?  Do the Israelis 
>have a system that is totally independent of an outside electrical source?  
>Are the solar energy collectors also generating electricity for the 
>desalination plant's auxiliaries loads?
>
>The reason I ask is that I see a great potential for such a solar based
>desalination plant to be very effective in water poor areas like the Carribean
>Islands and several South Pacific Islands.  The big handicap for these people
>is electricity is still needed to power the pumps.  Since they are also 
>electricity poor, having a solar heated desalination plant does not do them
>much good if they still have to build an oil-fired electrical power plant to
>provide the electricity to the pumps.

In the abscence of full solar operation, would windpower be an option? 
I've never seen any analysis of windpower economics for maritime/insular
environments to say yea or nay, or any indeed any island energy projects
other than grandiose OTEC plans.  But then, it's not something I'd hear
about except by chance.

Speaking of which, has much been done with OTEC lately?  It sounded good 
for awhile, then kind of vanished.  The open-cycle plants even produced
desalinized water as a by-product, which is what reminded me of this...
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: A Compressed-Air Car -- Possible?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 10:13:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   I am not an engineer but interested in this thread about
 compressed air and it was mentioned that only a 100 gallon
 tank at 1000 psi still represents considerable potential
 energy.
 How much horse power over time is that...or at least a hint
 on how to calculate?

-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.space
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:12:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.171017.28081@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Remember Apollo 13, the failure modes for these things includes
>BOOM! Also don't forget the electrolyzer, tankage, and pumps.

I thought the Apollo 13 failure was due to overheating a dewar,
something not proposed for this house project.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Subject: Re: Calculation of heat absorbed by solar air collector
Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:38:25 GMT

peterb@runx.oz.au (Peter Barker) writes:
> I want to calculate the heat which will be absorbed in a solar air heater
> under various conditions, e.g. different black collection surface behind
> a glass window, different wind speeds, etc. I am sure this has been done
> before, and would appreciate it if someone could suggest a place to find
> a program to do this, or a good book on the subject.

Peter,

The textbook we are using for my solar systems engineering course is:

"Solar Energy Engineering" by Jui Sheng Hsieh, Prentice-Hall Inc. Englewood
Cliffs N.J.

They also list a publisher in Australia: Prentice-Hall of Australia Pty.
Ltd, Sydney.

He has a good chapter on solar energy collectors - selective absorber
surfaces, transparent plates, collector energy losses, thermal analysis of
collectors, air-heating collectors, etc.  Also info on construction
materials and their heat transfer capabilities.

-->Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy		(215)543-8961
	dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu	pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
======================================================================
Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
	50 yards later: "Campground	Next Right"
"Why do you kill people?"   -   "I am a terminator."  [Terminator 2]
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: error! error! error!
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:40:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

                   !!!Hold the Presses!!!

                    Error! Error! Error!

My recent posting stating that a Joe LaStella of B.A.T.  Interna-
tional had established a world record of 450.2 miles on a  single
charge of batteries was incorrect in that the batteries were  not
lead-acid,  but  silver-zinc. Silver-zinc is very  expensive  and
there is just not that much silver in world to power many automo-
biles.

I  sat through a two hour session on electric vehicles at  WESCON
92 in which the record was discussed, but the words "silver-zinc"
were not mentioned, but lead-acid was implied in a sort of  "bait
and switch" tactic. At least one other reviewer, who also attend-
ed the session, drew the same erroneous impression.

Actually Mr. LaStella had made no statement before or made during
the  session  as  to the chemistry involved in  the  record,  but
without making a disclaimer switched to talking about a lead-acid
battery they had designed and were about to market. Carelessness?
Intentional?

The  information about the silver-zinc batteries came from  other
sources.

My apologies to everyone!

However, in the same session, a gentleman from Trojan  Batteries,
who claim to be the largest manufacturer of lead-acid  batteries,
described a new 60V battery with a reduced internal resistance by
a factor of 43 over the standard battery, which should result  in
higher  specific power, higher usable specific energy and  longer
life.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E--
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:53:57 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Nov14.185409.17561@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <51470@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.171616.3162@nic.csu.net>, spang@calstatela.edu (Sue Pang 10-16-91) writes:
>>> 	One form of renewable energy in the nonsolar category is 
>>> "Hydro energy", which is a form of energy using water power as a driving 
>>> force to turn the hydraulic turbine to create electricity. Its cycle 
>>> is very inefficient, because 50% of the input energy is lost in the 
>>
>>I would point out that 50% recovery is generally not considered inefficient.
>>Most power options operate at much less than 50% efficiency.
>
>I'd also point out that "hydro energy" *is* indirect solar energy. It's
>the heat from the Sun that evaporates water forming clouds that then rain
>or snow on uplands supplying the water at a higher gravitational potential
>which then runs back to the sea through those nice dams. 50% conversion
>efficiency *is* quite good, about 4 times better than solar cells, and
>about twice as good as solar thermal.
>

Except that it's not 50% of the same thing.

The 12% efficiency of the solar collectors is 12% of the energy of the sunlight
falling on the collector.  

The 50% efficiency of the hydro plant is 50% of the energy represented by the
water level difference of the two resivoirs, which is in turn a tiny percentage
of the solar energy that illuminated the ocean to make the rain.

-dk
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Any info. on hydrogen power for cars??
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:54:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.205815.6068@engage.pko.dec.com> moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

>Before hydrogen cars can ever be more than a "look at us, see how good
>enviromentalists we are" project/publicity stunt, one major problem has
>to be solved.  How do you generate all that hydrogen in the first place
>without generating pollution, possibly more than running the car on gasoline
>or some other alternate fuel in the first place?
>
>Also, you get NOx pollution when hydrogen is burned in an internal combustion
>motor, the only way to make it so the "only by-product is water" is to use
>it in a fuel cell (which is sensible anyway).

	The currently most economical way to make hydrogen is from the coal gas
process,  which also produces CO,  but the CO can also be burned to produce
CO2 and quite a bit of energy,  so except for the CO2 emission,  this could be
fairly clean.  Most people who talk about a hydrogen economy,  however,
suggest that we make the hydrogen by electrolysis of water,  getting
electricity from whatever they believe is an environmentally benign and
potentially economical source:  nuclear energy,  ground-based solar,  wind,
and solar power from space satellites have all been suggested.

	So far as the NOx emissions go,  they can be reduced by changing the
operating parameters of the engine (cylinder temperatures) and by other
engineering tricks,  so that they could be much,  much,  cleaner than
comparable gasolene-fuel vehicles.  Also,  photochemical smog is caused by
a combination of hydocarbons and NOx,  so simply reducing the hydrocarbons
or the NOx alone could make a large contribution towards the reduction of
smog and improving air quality.

	I personally think that biomass fuels are more likely to be used
in a sustainable economy -- with fuel cells,  one could get very close to
zero emission (some CO2 gets released,  but it was just removed from
the atmosphere in the past few years,  so this doesn't contribute to
global warming).  And significant steps can be made towards cleaner engines,
as well as improving mass transport and urban planning.
 


--
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:46:14 GMT

In article <1ejanuINNh44@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <51526@seismo.CSS.GOV>, stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> =Takes into account alpha damage.  Pu is a hazardous heavy metal, but you are
> =correct that its heavy metal danger is much less than a lot of toxics.
> =Chemical state is irrelevant to this scenario as long as a microgram is
> =ingested or inhaled.  This is because it is estimated to take less than
> =a nanogram of Pu to kill.
> 
> And a single cosmic ray can also kill you, if it happens to do just the right
> damage.  So what's the point?

That is not where this argument comes from.  This is from recommended exposure
levels by the AEC.  So I'm not making some sort of magic bullet claim like
your specious cosmic ray.  Basically, a nanogram of Pu still contains billions
of atoms, and enough alpha decays among them over a short period in you bones
to guarantee luekemia.  Please stay on the subject.

> And what's the probability that a microgram of Pu will kill?  A reasonable
> comparison would be between the LD50s of the two compounds.  

Agreed, but I do not have acces to these numbers, I only have recommended
exposure levels which are over 6 orders of magnitude different between CN
and Pu.

> => What about Bernard Cohen's willingness to eat and breathe plutonium
> => oxide?  To be elected President of the Health Physics Society, he
> => certainly must be regarded by health physicists as an expert.
> =
> =And then he'd be a highly regarded health physicist with terminal
> =leukemia.
> 
> With what probability?

Given the AEC's caution wrt. Pu, I'd guess close to 100% (Cohen did say
he'd swallow a gram, for cryin' out loud.  That's 9 orders of magnitude
too much.)  But it's only a guess.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:24:59 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

What about SPS? Start building stations in orbit and beam power down, that
old idea? Any comments or am I just hitting a subject that gets flamed
every 4 months or so?

-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy