HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Sup
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:38:40 GMT

In <3329.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:

>E(>In <1992Sep25.192358.148@aston.ac.uk> foxp@cs.aston.ac.uk (Pete Fox,,,,unive
>E(>ucb)) writes:

>E(>>I used to be a fan of nuclear power - then I got a degree in physics and
>E(>>know a bit more about it.

>E(>If you consider this to be a persuasive argument against nuclear
>E(>power, then you're arguing in favor of it: upwards of 90% of physics
>E(>and engineering graduates support nuclear power, and the higher 
>E(>the degree, stronger the support.

>90% of priests that graduate from seminary are in favor of religion too.

>Most university physic departments are temples for nuclear energy.
>That's where the jobs and the research money can be had.

>A majority of college graduates at one time also believed in the
>Ptolemaic theory of the universe.

Of course there is some self-interest among physicists and engineers
for nuclear power. I did not suggest that majority support 
among the technical was a good argument for nuclear; only that some
opposition among the technical was not a good argument against it.

Still, one would expect even more self-interest in nuclear weapons
research and star wars; there's a lot more new technology involved and
there is (or was) a lot more money. Yet the support is nowhere near as
strong among the technical for these military projects as it is
for nuclear power.
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Dream Design?
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:12:04 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:


>I'd like to ask a bit of indulgence here:  What would be your 'dream design'
>for this purpose?  Would it be a LMFB or a HTGR or an 'inherently save LWR'
>or what?

>If the industry were given a mandate to come up with THE reactor design
>(or maybe two, if there were a synergistic set where one bred and the
>other generated, for example) for the next 50 years, what would it be?

>I can't help but believe that it wouldn't be what we have today, but what
>would it be?  Lets forget the past for a few minutes and look into the
>future.  Show me that the future is one I can believe in!

Good question.  I agree that were we to have it to do over again and 
have the opportunity to save ourselves from the Rickhover effect,
LWRs would not be the choice.  Here's my dream design.

Medium enrichment, High temperature gas cooled, of course.  Excellent safety 
and high enough heat to be used in most industrial processes.  Maybe 
continuously refuelable (see below).  Sized to ~200 MWt (80-100 MWe).  
Designed to be racked up on a manifold to feed an 800 MWe or so turbine.  
That seems to be the optimal turbine and steam system plant in terms of 
economy of scale, reliability and so on.  Each reactor controlled by its 
own control system so that one scram does not take the generator down.
Medium enrichment gives the reactor good response, high xenon burnthrough
capability and physically small size.  Designed to burn mixed, reprocessed
fuel, of course.

One of two refueling models, depending on the economics involved.  Either
continuous refueling or designing the reactor as a batch unit that can
be unplugged from its manifold mount and carted off intact to the refueling
depot.  Continuous refueling would be more conducive to large complexes
with on-site reprocessing.  Batch would be more conducive to smaller
units and a central reprocessing facility.

A properly designed plug-in reactor could fit in either a power plant or
in an industrial process heat installation.  Built on an assembly line,
and in sufficient quantity to justify automation, they should be very
reliable and inexpensive.  With no liquid cooling involved, the safety
systems become very simple.  The reactor control could be done on something
with no more power than a PC.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: gregj@pico.qpsx.oz.au (Greg Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Wind assistance for shipping
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:18:20 GMT
Organization: QPSX Communications LTD, Perth, Western Australia.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

With incresing pressure on the users of heavy fossil fuels to reduce
greenhouse gas emmissions any method of fuel reduction needs to be
looked at seriously.  It is possible to substantially reduce the fuel
usage of ships by the use of wind assistance.  Trials have, in the past,
shown fuel savings of greater than 20% are acheivable.  Complexity,
weight, and operational compromises have deterred wide deployment of
wind assistance on commercial ships.  Nautical Systems Pty Ltd, of Perth
Western Australia, has developed a Variable Geometry Wing Sail (VGWS)
that we believe overcomes the shortcomings of other wind assistance
systems. 

 With this system it is possible to vary the thichkness and
camber of the foil (including the ability to swap asymmetry from side to
side).  This is achieved by the means of a very light and simple system.
We have had prototypes operating on small racing yachts (18' Skiff,
Hobie 18, Sonata 8m keel boat, windsurfers) and subjected them to
rigourous use.  The simplicity and flexibility of the system means that
a efficient aerodynamic lifting surface can be achieved on both port and
starboard tacks and through a wide range of incident wind angles, all
with a sail that can be reefed and stowed.  It is possible to construct
the system from a wide range of materials (for both sails and spars).
We have used carbon fibre,kevlar and balsa wood for spar construction,
as well as aluminium.  Steel construction for commercial shipping
applications would be the most likely choice.  Sail used to date have
been dacron, mylar/kelar, or mylar/dacron.  The design would allow the
use of much more rigid sail panels and we have considered the use of
Fibreglass or other rigid materials.

I have posted this item to this newsgroup because there may be someone
out there who is interested in this technology.  We are looking for
industry support in commercialising this project.  We have a close
affiliation with Curtin University of Technology (Centre for Marine
Science and Technology (CMST)) and further research and development
would most likely be carried out with their assistance.  If you are
interested or you know of someone that may be, or you can offer
assistance in any other way, please contact me.

Greg Johnston
Nautical Systems Pty Ltd
Phone +61 9 450 4803 (Fax also)
Email gregj@QPSX.oz.au
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Sup
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:06:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

JW>It appears to be spoon-feeding time.  Okay, since A.Lovins has been been
JW>mentioned here recently, let's consider him.  In the mid-80's he made about
JW>$600/day as a consultant and speaker.  "Energy consultant" label aside,
JW>Lovins is anti-nuclear at the heart.  He has made big money from the
JW>movement, and he has tremendous power.  Need I go on?  (Please don't come
JW>back with "Okay, that's one.  Who else...?")

$600/day is chicken feed. A great number of lawyers in that period
charged $600/hr. A lot more do today. My ex-boss, a PH/D physicist,
charges $160/hr for consulting and he charged $95/hr for my time.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . My reality check just bounced.
                                                                                    
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:16:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.160518.11287@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.152144.24524@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>> [...]
>>Not true, according to Ontario Hydro's experience.  Conservation and 
>>efficiency were given top priority (ie. greater than supply) in its 
>>recent 25-year Demand/Supply Plan (currently under government review),
>>resulting in it being one of -- if not *the* -- most ambitious demand
>>management plans in North America.  According to their cost estimates, 
>>the demand management components are the most expensive, per MW, in the
>>whole plan.  (Cost, obviously, was not given top priority either).
>
>Do you have any information or figures for this?  Do you know what
>their DSM strategies were or what the expected cost per MW was?
>The studies I have seen (by EPRI) have shown different results,
>and have been verified by some experience in the US.  

Using the estimates for the median growth case, the costs in 1989 million
Cdn. dollars, taken from Ontario Hydro's original 25-year Demand/Supply 
plan (its since been revised) are:

Nuclear and Fossil (6.1 GW), incl. capital, OM&A, and fuel: 432/GW  

Demand Management (5.6 GW), incl. load reduction and load shifting: 644/GW

You can get more info. by calling their public line at 1-800-263-9000, 
although this might only apply to Ontario.      

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:22:02 GMT

Mike Smith writes
> I'm from NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (and don't you forget it!)  
not SOUTHERN CA.!
> 
> If you're gonna accuse me of bias, at least get the  
direction right ;-)
> 
> Southwestern bias, indeed ... I don't live anywhere  
remotely 
> hear Hollywood ... or Santa Monica ... or Venice beach  
;-)


From here you look to quite south, and more than a bit  
west.  I thought NORTHern California started at Yreka  
(sic?)  
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:00:33 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct5.161053.11641@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.105026.8799@gallant.apple.com> ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep24.014406.12933@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>
>>>The Sunbelt is more than the Central Valley of California. 
...
>>>Your extreme southwestern bias distorts
>>>your picture of the Sunbelt.
>>
>>I'm from NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (and don't you forget it!) not SOUTHERN CA.!
>
>Sorry, you did say, "..when I was living in the Central Valley.." at
>the start of the thread about abundance of sunshine. I see that stretches
>from Sacramento to Bakersfield. 

It stretches from about REDDING or RED BLUFF (up near Shasta Lake)
down to Bakersfield.  When I used to live in the Central Valley, it
was in a town 70 miles north of Sacramento ...  the Central Valley
goes another 70 miles or so on north of that ...

>I spent a winter in San Francisco one 
>weekend. Didn't see the sun at all, cold too. That's probably the ocean.

Yup.  There is an astounding range of micro climates in the SF Bay 
area.  In summer, it has been 60 degrees in S.F. and 100+ in San Jose!

This isn't the odd quirk, that kind of weather disparity exists most
of the time.  SF is a cold and dank place compared to SJ most of 
the time...  It is all do the large quantity of cold water on 
ALL THREE (!) sides of the city ...

As you go inland, the climate warms more in summer and gets cooler
in winter.  San Jose is more 'inland'.  We are also sheltered from
the fog by the Santa Cruz mountains.

>According to my climate map, your daily highs are in the 90s in summer
>and lows creep down toward freezing in the winter, not as extreme as
>North Georgia. 

Thats about right.  The freezing days are often sparse, though, in 
San Jose.  You get more freezing days as you move more inland.

>It says the northern valley gets between 40 and 80 inches 
>of rain a year, must be cloudy *sometimes*. :-)

Worse than that (he said, preparing to load his opponents gun for him ;-)
in the NORTHERN central valley, at least, it can be foggy for weeks
on end.  Major 8-( for solar ...  I grew up thinking that seeing
nothing but 'valley' or 'tule' fog and high thick cloud cover for 
weeks on end from October-January was 'normal'...

Wasn't till I moved out of The Great Valley that I learned there were
places with sunny Decembers, like Marin County can have ... 

I personally think the climate near San Jose is just about ideal, though.
Little to no fog.  Lots of sun.  Now if I could just get about 4 million
people to move away ... ;-)  (and take their smog with them...)

We get more like 14 inches of rain rather than the 40 you get more
inland.  (And much of that falls on the hills where the air uplifts.)
All in all, not a heck of alot of clouds.


-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:11:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

CJL>Also, I remember hearing of a similar program at, if I recall correctly, Lo
CJL>Alamos National Labs, which was supposed to produce a super battery.  That
CJL>about eight years ago.  I personally wouldn't put any more faith in thedeve
CJL>nt of cheap, safe, reliable high power density batteries in the next
CJL>few years than I would in the development of true AI or sustained nuclear
CJL>fusion in the same time scale.  They're all three fields that've been
CJL>characterized by just-around-the-cornerism for decades.

My definition of a pessimist is that of an optimist who reads the
newspapers.

The EPA is evidently being leaned-on by GM and the oil-companies to
invalidate the California statutes that mandate zero emission vehicles
(ZEV) in the near future. GM claims they can't adapt to meet the dates.
Ha!

Now that is a real conspiracy - to use the federal government to
rob the momentum of a effort that will harm their precious balance
sheets. If the ZEV statutes go away, there will little initiative to
manufacture the better batteries that are already developed.

Hopefully, the very arrogant General Motors will go bankrupt before the
EPA can move. But then December is not very far away.

So you and Mr. Dietz are probably right. The batteries might not show
up, but neither will that low emission, two-cycle engine.

Mr. Kettering was wrong. What is good for General Motors is definitely
not good for the United States!

hhs

How's that for bald acrimony?
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . This tagline is umop apisdn
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Logic, Trust, and risk. (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 10:01:47 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep29.031313.3743@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>I would argue that most people use the average case as the primary metric
>>of comparison of alternatives for most of the decisions they make.  
>
>Until it is shown that the worst case is the right one to use ...
>I won't knowingly buy a house in a flood plain.

Are you sure?  I take it, then, that you're living at or near the peak of a
mountain.  Or perhaps you meant you wouldn't knowingly buy a house in a 10-year
flood plain?  Or did you mean 50-year?  100-year?  Are you sure you wouldn't
willingly buy a hours in a 1,000-year flood plain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,talk.environment
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: NEWS: "Minus-Emission Cars" Tap Hydrogen
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:50:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.154048.27881@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>Sure.  If we were willing to cover the entire desert with powerplants.
>I'm no tree hugger, but I'm not willing to trash the desert like that.

	Alot of it already is trashed.  Specifically,  a lot of the land that
has been strip mined for coal and other things in the West probably won't go
back and time soon and certainly would be a good place to start with solar
energy projects.  Similarly,  we could also build solar energy projects in
salted-over farms in the California desert and other places that we've ruined.
So far as the serious proposals that I've seen,  most of them would actually
require a rather small fraction in the desert lands of California and Arizona,
something on the order of 10%.  Now,  this is quite a bit,  but we would have
few constraints (i.e. there doesn't have to be coal underneath) on where we
do it so we could target the solar sites for areas with low conservation
value.

	I would probably be willing to live with this if it is part of a
reasonable plan to make land use in the West sustainable.  As just another
act of exploitation,  I would oppose it.

--
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:25:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <3042.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>GC>Proof of this assertion would be welcome. All the studies and reports
>GC>I've seen hold out little hope that photovoltaic systems can be cost
>GC>competitive with other energy generation systems. 

>Southern California Edison has proposed legislation in California
>requiring all new residences built in their service area from 1995
>onward to have 2 kW of PVs and to feed the excess power into the utility
>grid. 

Hmmm.  2kW ... with, say, 6 hrs a day of prime time in southern Ca. ...
for about 12 kW-hr/day/house ... Enough to cover that homes usage plus
a little, I'd guess...  

>The utility would then be relieved of the headache of sourcing
>power, but would make a profit providing the service of storage and
>redistribution. 

And do a little birth control on an otherwise threatening home power
market ...  "Gee, but the law says you HAVE to sell the excess to the
friendly utility company, so those batteries will have to go and you
will have to buy a syncronous inverter ..."

>Speculation by several observers is that the preferred
>method of storage will be hydrogen through electrolysis and
>then regeneration back to electricity through fuel cells.
>
>Southern California Edison is also a partner with Texas Instruments in
>the developement of the new low cost Spheral Solar(TM) cells that
>will likely be installed on these homes. So someone in the utility
>business seems to be convinced that there is profit in the future for
>PV.

Especially if you can legislate the creation of a market ...

(Guess my desire to mistrust large organizations is greater than 
my desire to see solar succeed at any cost ;-)

-- 
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
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roofs
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:08:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Indiana University

In article <3212.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:

>
>One of the problems with solar water heaters is that they can freeze up
>and burst on clear, cold nights due to radiation effects, even though
>the air temperature is considerably above freezing. Most systems
>automatically drain the black surfaced panels at night to prevent this
>problem.

Most modern SDHW systems use an antifreeze and a heat exchanger.
Freezing is not a problem.
-- 
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: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 26 Sep 92 08:01 PDT
Subject: Re: Arguments
Nf-ID: #R:3100.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com:-229613073:cdp:1466300085:000:371
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Sep 26 08:01:00 1992


What I like, Howard, is how the technofixers are positive that
nukes can be made perfectly safe, CO2 can be stored at the
bottom of the ocean, nature can be remade through biotech, etc.,
etc. ad nauseam....yet have 101 reasons why solar, wind and
biomass energy are implausible.

Funny how their limitless faith in human technological ingenuity
suddenly evaporates.

Tom
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:14:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct4.200235.9424@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <31463@goofy.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>
>> Do you happen to know the projected cost for storage via the 
>> thermal breakdown of methanol to CO + 2H2 and back again?
>> (I hope I got the process right... it's the one proposed for
>> storing nuclear energy for peak use by a reversable catalytic
>> breakdown of a hydrocarbon compound... it also has been looked 
>> at as a thermal solar storage system.)  
>
>I don't know, but this doesn't seem to be a very sensible thing to do
>unless the heat must be transported great distances.  The systems I
>have seen for thermal storage mostly use molten salts, as these are
>nonflammable (although nitrates are oxidizers) and operate at low
>pressure.  Even then, they aren't too sensible for nuclear, where the
>turbines and generators make up a substantial part of the system cost.
>
>BTW, producing methanol is probably not a very good idea; this only
>gives heat at 250 C or so.  Reaction to form methane would give higher
>temperatures.  The scheme you describe requires storing CO and
>hydrogen, however, which requires considerably pressurized volume.

I could easily have confounded a methane reforming system with 
methanol (note the tentative statements about hoping I got the
process right).  It was written up in a Sci. Am. a few years ago.

The conclusion was something along the lines that it was almost
economical for nuclear but had some technical issues yet to prove
out (i.e. hadn't really been done at more than lab type scale.)
and could benefit from a bit more work on catalysis.  

Guess I'll have to go dig up the article to get the straight facts
so that there is less to speculate on ...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has