HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:56:31 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1a4kgmINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.122308.29346@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>Plus the snow in the north?
>>
>>Yes for two reasons. First, photovoltaic panels of today's design impose
>>a roof loading of around 4 lb/sqft. That's well within the loadings 
>>anticipated by the Code. Second, in the north, panels must be inclined
>>at a steeper angle than in the south. That means that not much snow will
>>*accumulate* on them.
>
>Well, that's true.  Now, where exactly does the snow that falls on the roof
>above the panels end up? What about the snow that slides off any but the lowest
>row of panels, assuming you have more than one row?

Depending on how the panels are mounted, flush on steep roofs, or on short
legs on flat or gently sloping roofs, the snow coming off the panels slides
off the roof just like it would if the panels weren't there.

> The Code requires 40 lb/sqft in the north to 
>>accomodate snow loading on a *flat* roof. Since the collectors will be
>>inclined at an angle of more than 40 degrees, the problem doesn't arise
>>unless the panels are mounted to a flat roof where the snow that slides
>>off of them still stays on the roof. Note that that's still the same
>>amount of snow that would have fallen on the flat roof, only the excess
>>4 lb of the collectors has to be carried.
>
>But the loading's no longer even.

That's true. But the Code already takes into account *drifted* snow on
large flat roofs. Remember that one foot of snowfall weighs the same as 0.1
inch of rain. That's 6 pounds per square foot. It's a non-issue unless the 
snow somehow becomes severely compacted or we're dealing with an *ice* storm. 
That's a different animal altogether. In areas were radial ice buildup is 
common, another set of codes apply to ice prone structures. Roofs generally
aren't ice prone, but non-flush mounted panels might be. The more significant
problem for non-flush panels is *wind* loading. A 60 MPH gale can generate
substantial side forces on upright panels.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:04:43 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct1143011@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>Believing that the propaganda efforts of the nuclear energy are well
>organized is a triumph of ideology over experience.  The only outfit
>promoting nuclear energy today in the public media is the Committee
>on Energy Awareness whose ads one sometimes sees.  Compare the space
>they get with the amount occupied by green propaganda, both paid for
>and free.

Current propaganda efforts by the nuclear industry certainly
haven't been succesul, but they do exist.

I have read of an "industry group" that is organizing a campaign to
bring major new nuclear power construction to the US.  They have
developed a three-pronged strategy to do this.  The first part is
aimed at the government and is included in Bush's energy plan.  It
includes such items as the one-step liscencing.  This effort has
pretty much succeeded.  The second part is aimed at the financial
markets.  The Wall Street types couldn't care less whether the
technology is good or whether the industry is over-regulated.  All
they know is that investments in nuclear energy are not money
makers.  The campaign will attempt to use the new "inherently safe"
designs to convince the financiers that its a new game and they
should look again.  I'm not aware of any progress here, vis-a-vis
the financiers.  The third step, of course, is to convince the
public.  I don't think anything has happened here, yet (that I
know of).

I will try to find the name of this industry lobbying group.
>
>A long time ago utilities using nuclear power used to praise them in
>their bill inserts.  However, the public utility commissions are now
>substantially in green hands and forbid that.  Instead they *require*
>them to promote what the greens want, e.g. using less electricity.
>The utilities will do whatever the regulators say.  If solar energy
>is expensive, they utilities will make more money if they use it,
>because since the regulators love solar energy, they will let the
>utilities pass the higher costs on to the customers and make their
>customary percentage profit.

I would call this R&D for new technologies.  Since utilities are
the only ones who use bulk power generation and their prices are
set by PUC's, the _only_ way that new technologies can be
developed, outside of government labs, is through passing the
research expense through.  Doesn't GM pass its research expense
through?  

>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:57:42 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <rhoward.718317620@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:

>>The automatic activation of the emergency cooling system prevented
>>radiation from being released by the plant in the Fukushima district,
>>70 miles northeast of Tokyo.
>
>I don't know that this follows logically.  It's sort of like saying
>"Plant operates normally.  No radiation released today.  Film at 11"

...

In contrast, the following story was also on the news wires...

   "Three missing, presumed dead in Indiana power plant fire"

	SULLIVAN, Ind. (UPI) -- Three people were missing and presumed
   dead Monday afternoon after fire raced through a power generating
   station at Merom along the Wabash River in western Indiana. ...


This was a fossil fuel plant, and they did not die from
exposure to ionizing radiation.  I am sure their families are
overjoyed at their good fortune.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Sup
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:56:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <3234.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>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.

$600/day is WORSE than chicken feed.  *I* was billed out at $950/day
when I was in the IBM mainframe database consulting business.  This
was about 1982 and I had about 3 years total experience in the computer
field.  (Though I was damn good with database design and efficiency
tuning ... and the customers got more cycles back than my time cost...)

For $600/day you could maybe get some one right out of school who had
been told where the manuals were ...

The hot shots from 'the back room' were billed out at more like $1600/day
if I remember right.  

Oh, and all those rates were 'plus expenses'...  I put on 30 lbs in 
2 years ... (LOVE that Prime Rib with good Carbernet!)

If all Mr. Lovins got was $600/day, he was truely donating his time.  My
local car repair station charges $440/day for mechanics ($55/hr) who may
or may not have completed high school ...


-- 
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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebutt
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:29:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.100946.6278@sinix.UUCP> egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS) writes:

> That's true, but electricity is often used for purposes for which it
> isn't necessary. Why using it for AC and heating? The total efficiency
> is very low, because the efficiency of generating power is very low.
> Especially for AC and heating it's better to use power sources which
> produce heat directly. Solar thermal is one of the choices, but even
> burning natural gas directly is better than using it to generating 
> electricity first and than using the electrity to generate heat.


This is in error.  Electricity used properly can be more efficient
than just burning the fuel.  Small air electric conditioners and
household refrigerators are more efficient (and cheaper) than small
absorption based refrigerators (although this will be subject to
change).  Electric heat pumps are more efficient that direct
combustion of fossil fuels when the outside temperature is low.

Direct burning of natural gas in a home furnace causes large second
law losses -- heat is allowed to flow "downhill" from the flame to
rather low temperature air.  It would be more efficient to either use
a gas-fired heat pump or an electric heat pump powered by a remote
generator whose waste heat is used for some other useful purpose.
Home cogeneration would also be good, but is not yet feasible.

Electricity is also more controllable than fossil fuels.  An example
of this is in curing of paint in US auto factories.  Previously, this
was done in gas-fired ovens.  Replacing these with electric radiant
heating systems results in less energy use, better quality paint, and
higher throughput.  Another example is the microwave oven vs.  the gas
oven.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

From: curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:26:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

 |/carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick):
 |Yackadam, the eternal bleater of "let's base our analysis on worst-case
  ^^^^^^^^
 |scenarios" doesn't think there's a good excuse for overstating claims.  Well,
 |at least he seems to have a sense of humor.
 |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Why don't you and your mentor John de Asshole crawl off in a hole and abuse
each other? I'm really getting sick of your mindless personal attacks
and willful misrepresentations.

There is no definitive way to interpret "probabilities", in general.
A frequency interpretation, based on gambling models, is most intuitive.
This works well, and is mathematically well defined, if there are enough
repetitions of the (identical) experiment that the law of large numbers
can be invoked. Even if there are fewer repetitions, there may be a strong
underlying physical model which justifies a frequency interpretation
(e.g. the decay of the proton). In cases where there is neither a
statistically significant data base nor a strong physical model,
it isn't clear that "probability" is well defined at all.

One of the semantic difficulties in (the rational subset of) this discussion
pertains to the use of the word "subjective". Some participants (e.g.
Kevin Brown) seem to treat this as a synonym for "irrational". Victor
is using the word, correctly IMO, to mean "not readily quantifiable".
If you can't buy an instrument to measure "frangification", then
frangification is a subjective concept. This does *not* imply that it
is not real or not important, but it does make it difficult to account for
frangification in a mathematical model.

Bo "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, ..." Curry
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4745 sci.optics:1022
From: arnold@clipper.ingr.com (Roger Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.optics
Subject: Ref on Thermal IR Properties?
Keywords: Thermal infrared, properties of materials
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:10:05 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

I'm interested in writing some thermal modeling software.  Among other
things, I want to use it in designing solar houses.  Can somebody point 
me to references that give optical properties of materials at thermal 
IR wavelengths (say, 7-15 microns)?

Surely this sort of information is tabulated somewhere reasonably
accessible?  I struck out with the CRC handbook and other references I 
tried at public libraries.  I'll probably have to try Stanford.

I'm particularly interested in whether there are any plastics that are
reasonably transparent at both visible and thermal IR wavelengths.
What's their index of refraction (for computing reflectance), and if
they're only partially transparent, how thick can a film be before the
loss is 50%?

--
Roger Arnold
arnold@clipper.ingr.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy

 Michael Smith:
 |That correctly puts the focus on the values of the folks being exposed 
 |to the risk and takes it off the engineering definition of calculated
 |abstract 'risk'.  
 |
 |The alternative is a long border war of the form "Engineers don't do
 |risk stuff right" vs. "Non-Nukers are innumerate flakes since they don't
 |accept our mathematical model of risk".  The reality is more along the
 |lines that pro-nukers do have good models, but have some limits on 
 |quality of input data, and that anti-nukers don't value the probable
 |outcomes in the same way that engineers do.
 |
 (etc)

Good post. I think this analysis sums up the situation quite accurately.

Bo Curry
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind assistance for shipping
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:34:47 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

How big a ship do your models predict this being useful on?
I suspect a VLCC (very large crude carrier) would need inconveniently
large sails even to notice the effect.
What do you figure the sails would cost as a percentage of hull cost?

Chris Kostanick
Hard 'a lee!
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:23:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: spacebbs.3328.1460.uupcb
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193

JR>The NPR piece on "natural" problems with solar and wind energy was very
JR>interesting.  So were the pieces over the weekend that dealt with the
JR>"damage" Hurricane Andrew did to the Everglades and Louisiana bayous.

Some of us did not catch the NPR piece on the problems of wind and
solar energy. Please elucidate.

I'm still trying to locate the information about the maker of electric
cars in your area.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Press any key to continue or any other key to quit
From: roehr@cae.wisc.edu (Donald Allan Roehr)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Incentives for competetion in power companies
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:24:02 GMT
Distribution: sci.energy sci.econ
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin--Madison


	The public utility regulation process has changed dramatically
in the past 10 years.  Reasons for this are many.  I am intrested in 
information about the growing competion between the public power company
and independent power producers (IPP).  If you have any information please
post it to the news group or please mail me information.  This question may
be broaden as you see fit.. (example co-generation, improvements in 
technology, etc...) 

********************************************************************************
John P Colgan
Roehr@cae.wisc.edu (email)
quote: 'I know I am going to die' by: SOHO _THUG_, Lucky One
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:28:57 GMT


*** BEGIN QUOTE***

JAPANESE CAR BARELY AVERTS CAR CRASH

HAMILTON, ONT. (crAP) -- A morning commuter reached for his coffee while
driving along Hwy. 99 today, taking his eyes off the road and failing to
notice a crowd of pre-schoolers crossing the road ahead of him.  Looking 
up, he applied the brakes and took emergency swerving steps, thus barely
avoiding a major Plowdown.  Nobody was hurt, and the car (a Toyota Tercel,
one of the more popular cars on the road today) will require 
minor repairs to its right tie-rod after hitting the curb during the 
swerving maneuver.

A spokesman for Citizens Against Cars asked why this near-accident was not
reported to them immediately.  "It's a significant near-accident," he said,
"because the Emergency Swerving Maneuver had to be used."

*** END QUOTE ***

There you have it.  All the things that cause one pause about having cars
on our streets.

One guy makes a mistake, and per the article, the car is one system
away from a plowdown.  Then the folks who are in charge don't bother
to tell the public for the better part of a day...

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:32:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

>In article <3042.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:

> 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.

This would be crazy.  Conventional batteries are cheaper and more
efficient.  SoCal Edison has experience with battery banks for load
leveling (the Chino facility).  They are experimenting with fuel cells
(molten carbonate cells), but for generation, not storage.  Hydrogen
from electrolysis doesn't compete with hydrogen from reformed fossil
fuels until electricity drops to $.01-.02/kWh.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: waste
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:09:16 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <6PuNRB4w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us> nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn) writes:
 
>Start thinking about your refridge, Sun Frost has one that only draws
>60W when running! Now calculate that out compared to your 800W or
>MORE fridge you have...
 
>Hit the big stuff first, forget all this smal stuff!

For the person who posted that we were doomed due to ever increasing
energy consumption to rape the whole planet (well, not his *exact* 
words ;-) ... Note that my reduction by over 1/2 in electricity 
consumption involved buying a fridge that uses about 300w rather 
than the 800w prior.  I still have a factor of 5 to go before I 
run out of conservation options ...  (300w/60w = 5).

I looked at the SunFrost, but at something like $2k it just wasn't
cost effective.  The $580 or so White/Westinghouse from COSTCO had
the best 5 year payback.  In 5 years or so, then I'll get a SunFrost
equivalent when the prices have dropped...


-- 

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: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Yack's daemons (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal)
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:29:40 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <ba_p_bl@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>Well, that's the big question isn't it? What if a TMI style
>>screwup happens at an older plant and when they finally start 
>>cooling it the reactor vessel splits open due to the loss of 
>>ductility associated with nuclear radiation, 
>
>If you're going to walk the walk, at least talk the talk.  The theoretical
>problem is called Neutron-Enhanced Nil Ductility Elevation or simply 
>Neutron embrittlement.  Not a problem, of course, since a) all reactors are
>now charged with fuel enrichments that minimizes neutron irradiation of
>the pot and b) since the problem has been identified, all cooling water 
>including the passive accumulator cooling system is heated at all times
>to a temperature above the theoretical worst case nil ductility point.  End
>of problem.  As long as we're postulating, we can also postulate that the

Every time postings by some of the smart folks working on nuclear power
start to convince me that the technology has potential, you or one of your
equally rational colleagues pops up. Your point is nonsense, despite the
long words you seem so proud of. Anyone wanting technical information
on this issue could consult the record of the NRC hearings which closed
Yankee Rowe precisely because of concerns about loss of ductility.



The rest of your post is similarly well constructed. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Meyer's Hydrogen Nonsense
Organization: The World
Distribution: sci.energy
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:13:31 GMT

High voltage high current, low voltage low current, high voltage low current
or low voltage high current,  I don't care what you stick in water, you still
are splitting quantum mechanical bonds.  Unless Meyer has a new law of
physics, this is always going to cost more in energy than you get from the
produced hydrogen.  Simple entropy rules out any simple machine described
by Meyer.  Let's not start a nonsense email chain letter.

Greg Aharonian
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Subject: Risk models (was Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 10:56:58 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep24.205859.2942@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Zika) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep24.171637.4597@michael.apple.com> you write:
>>In article <53806@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>
>>>They are? The simplicity of a mathematical model is not an infallible
>>>indication of its correctness. Low probability/high consequence
>>>events are not necessarily equivalent in riskiness to high probability
>>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>low consequence events. 
>>
>>Since the whole question turns on this point, I'd suggest sharpening
>>the point by saying 'in the human valuation placed on the riskiness'.
>>
>>That correctly puts the focus on the values of the folks being exposed 
>>to the risk and takes it off the engineering definition of calculated
>>abstract 'risk'.  
>
>At the risk of beating a dead horse (kick, kick, kick)...  In mathematical
>terms this seems to take the form of a delta function.  Where:
>
>    R = P(i)C(i) {1 + alpha*delta(i) }
>
>In this model the delta function takes into account the indiviuals's
>perception/acceptance of event "i" (where alpha is some large number that
>Significantly increases cost).  However, the delta function is "tripped"
>at a different threshold for every individual.  So, _my_ delta function
>for a severe core melt is zero, whereas Victor's is one...
>
>  Hmm...  Using the same model, we come to very different estimates
>of the _Risk_ involved...

Yes, you seem to have captured it nicely!  Good work!
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

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