HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Subject: Thermal Storage Systems (was Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 10:11:02 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep19.200106.10105@en.ecn.purdue.edu> ghg@en.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble) writes:
>In article <1992Sep18.182330.2259@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>>Whoa!  It's quite feasible to use *thermal* storage.  That is, run the
>>AC when the power is cheap, store the "cold" in a "thermal battery"
>>(either as sensible heat or via some phase change, say ice), then use
>>the cold as desired.  I

>Anybody for getting up a discussion on thermal storage systems for
>offgrid home use? (both hot and cold storage).  What substances have
>high heats of fusion (melting) around 75oC to 150oC  for heat
>storage. Sodium Acetate (+ a little H2O)?  Calcium chloride (+ H2O)?
>Something which would run a house for a few days' of no sunlight..
>This would be all heating, not just domestic hot water.

I'd expect a basement of hot rocks and a watar bath would be rather
cheap to build ... do you really need hot salts?

>For A/C, some kind of large tank of H2O + antifreeze to lower the freezing
>point a little.. 

I rarely run my house below freezing .. why would I need to depress
the freezing point?  A simple ice pond should do ...

>Run a geothermal heatpump when solar/wind is avail
>and store heat (or lack of it) in storage systems.  One would have to
>deal with expansion of these storage media when they "froze" without
>rupturing things. 

I have these 'blue ice' things that go in the freezer.  They are just
cheap plastic around some stuff.  I think expansion breakage is easy
to deal with ...

The begger problem is, I think, that you have to store ALOT of 
heat in the winter and ALOT of cool in the summer.  That means TWO
large storage systems unless you can reuse the same for heat and cold.

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 13:32:43 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Arguments
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1466300085@igc.apc.org> Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>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

With all respect, Tom seems to be caught on the cusp of hyperbole and
herrings of crimson hue.  Few, even on Usenet, have claimed that nuclear
reactors can be "perfectly safe", etc.

Vis a vis solar, wind, and biomass, the words of Jerry Miller (posted 25
Sept 92) describe the situation as well as any,

  "That's because it's an argument over practical alternatives as
   opposed to _questionable_ ones (just kidding....big smiley :)"

When that check that still seems to be in the mail finally arrives,
appropriate risk and economic comparisons can and should be made.  Until
then, we have to face the fact that hopes and dreams are hard to measure.

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: drickel@sjc.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: NEWS: "Minus-Emission Cars" Tap Hydrogen
Originator: drickel@bounce
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:13:17 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


In article <ECONEWS.29Sep1992.2121@naughty-peahen.org>, EcoNet (via Jym Dyer) <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
|> [From EcoNet ecotopia.news Conference]
|> Pure hydrogen contains no
|> carbon, and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect
|> since the only end-product of combustion is water vapor.

And various oxides of nitrogen.  Unless you're using a fuel cell.  But this
does say "combustion".

|> but a hydrogen-burning car can be called "minus emission"
|> because it turns a pollutant into a clean fuel.

Let's see.  You can make hydrogen by electolyzing water, or by passing
superheated steam over coal (i think that's right).  I'm not sure that you can
call either water or coal a pollutant.  Later on this mentions the possibility
of extracting hydrogen from biowaste.  I'm not sure that the remaining slag
would be all that much less polluting.

|> U.S. manufacturers have shown little interest in hydrogen-
|> powered cars, and the closest such commercial vehicle is made
|> by Mercedes in Germany.

For appropriate definitions of "little".

|> According to Dr. Roger Billings of the International Academy of
|> Sciences, the conversion from a gasoline to a hydrogen internal
|> combustion engine can be made for as little as $500.

No mention of storage.  Presumably compressed hydrogen.

|> At the same time, a study by the World Resources Institute found
|> that the U.S. government and the auto industry spend billions to
|> subsidize gasoline prices.  The true price otherwise would be
|> several dollars per gallon.

???  This seems downright stupid.  That means that, over the lifetime of
my car, Detroit/US spends in subsidies roughly $6,000.  That's half the
price of my car.  Possibly the interpretation is that the US government
keeps the world price of oil down by vaguely concealed threats.  That may
be the case, but i'm not sure i'd call that a subsidy.  Possibly this means
that Detroit has prevented the US government from tacking on even higher
gasoline taxes.  That may also be the case, but that's even less a subsidy.

|> Fuel cells...are quite expensive; a one-
|> kilowatt cell costs about $5,000 to produce, even though it
|> would last more than four million miles.

And you probably want 10 kWatts, plus some sort of temporary surge capability
(for passing and acceleration).  At the quoted price, that's $50k.  The
four million miles figure seems to imply they've solved problems with
contaminates poisoning the fuel cell.

|> A hydride fuel cell can
|> multiply the range of an electric car 10 times, without adding
|> appreciably to the car's weight.

Hmm.  Say your car's range extends from 30 miles to 300 miles.  Again no
mention of hydrogen storage techniques.  If it doesn't add to the car's weight,
either they're using liquid hydrogen or they're replacing the batteries with a
hydride system of some sort.


david rickel
drickel@sjc.mentorg.com
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:34:22 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep29.014042.1932@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>In article <54008@dime.cs.umass.edu: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>:I have not seen any claims in the scientific literature that risk models
>:invalidate subjective concerns such as doubts about the efficacy of 
>:the NRC or doubts about whether probability estimates are correct
>:within an order of magnitude. Note that the AEC's own review of the 
>:Wash-1400 report produced some predictions of a major accident every
>:50 years of 200 reactor operation (or something like that, perhaps even
>:more). 
>
>Um, if you are refering to the Lewis Report, it was produced by the NRC,

I am not. I'm referring to the expert review set up within the AEC by
people such as Steve Hanauer and independent experts on probability and
risk assessment.  One can find an accouhese reviews in Daniel
Ford's UCS book -- the reviews were made public only after an extensive 
FOI lawsuit. In any case, the current literature on the subject is very
cautious.





-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: --Early Turbine Still
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:01:43 GMT

In article <3248.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:

>PD>This is a bit misleading.  New wind turbine installation in the US has
>PD>nearly ground to a halt.  It is far below even a few years ago.  The
>PD>California wind farms were supported by generous contracts paying
>PD>$.10/kWh or so for the electricity; those contracts are over or nearly
>PD>over and the payments will now be much lower.
>
>Well! it may be less than a few years ago, but it is very much alive.

  [ planned projects listed ]

I stand by the comment.  Almost no new wind capacity was installed in
the US over the last year.  I have read that only 55 MW, for US
Windpower, of new construction is outstanding in the US.  This is to
be compared to something like 1,700 MW installed in California.  There
are new projects on the drawing boards, but it remains to be seen just
how many will be funded.  Most of the US has a glut of capacity.

In California, the capacity factors of the turbines appear to have
stopped rising, and older machines are being scrapped as their
contracts are renewed -- the new contracts pay avoided costs of $.035
to $.05/kWh, vs. $.10/kWh for the old contracts.  This exceeds the O&M
costs on some of the older turbines.

Demand overseas, particularly in Europe, is much stronger.  And all
power (no pun intended) to the manufacturers if the really can make
the "nickel turbines" work.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition
Organization: LSI Logic/Headland Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.192358.148@aston.ac.uk> foxp@cs.aston.ac.uk writes:
>-- IMHO it seems that, in Britian at least, we have a nuclear power
>industry because the government wants to reprocess the fuel to extract
>material to make BIG bombs with.

I find this unlikely.  A power plant fuel cycle results in lots
of Pu240 and Pu242, which are very bad for making bombs.  (They
have a high spontaneous fission rate.)
-- 
"Once is happenstance,                     Mike Van Pelt
 Twice is coincidence,                     LSI Logic/Headland 
 Three times is enemy action."             mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
         -- Auric Goldfinger               sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp
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 22:11:08 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct1143011@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>  Instead they *require*
>them to promote what the greens want, e.g. using less electricity.

Thats because it is the cheapest way to go.  On the one hand you
complain when R&D expense is passed through because it costs you
more money.  Then you complain because a few PUC's are forcing
their utilities to use the cheapest alternative for providing
electricity _services_.  I have posted extensively in the past
about how using less electricity via efficiency is far cheaper
than building the new capacity needed to supply inefficient equipment.
This message is starting to get through to some utilities.  
>--
>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: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.192358.148@aston.ac.uk> foxp@cs.aston.ac.uk writes:

>-- IMHO it seems that, in Britian at least, we have a nuclear power industry because the government wants to reprocess the fuel to extract material to make BIG bombs with. I have heard of at least one accident ( OK very minor accident) that happened because they were running the plant too hot as more spent fuel was required for reprocessing to extract weapon making materials.

You are mixing up power reactors and production reactors here.  If a country
wants to reprocess fuel for bomb making, the last thing it would do is 
start a complex and expensive nuclear power industry, whose spent fuel is
highly unsuitable for bomb creation.  The accident you are referring to might
be the one at Windscale in the '50's, which is a military production reactor.

>There are various engineers saying that accidents with nuclear power stations aren't going to happen because they are designed not too. Sorry but nuclear power plants are designed by people, built by people, maintained by people and operated by people. People make mistakes.

Careful here.  We haven't said accidents don't happen.  Indeed, we have 
asserted that accidents *do* happen, that human fallibility is recognized,
and that extensive safety measures are taken which contain the damage. [For
V.Y.: ...have a very, very high probability of...]

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4733 talk.environment:3987
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: NEWS: "Minus-Emission Cars" Tap Hydrogen
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:40:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <ECONEWS.29Sep1992.2121@naughty-peahen.org> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (via Jym Dyer) writes:
>[From EcoNet ecotopia.news Conference]

>Minus-Emission Cars Tap Hydrogen 

>by Elaine Weinreb 

>One key focus at last month's Solar Energy Expo and Rally
>(SEER), which drew 10,000 people to Willits, was hydrogen
>technology.

>Cars that run on alternative fuels such as methanol are said to
>be low emission, and electric cars are called zero emission --
>but a hydrogen-burning car can be called "minus emission"
>because it turns a pollutant into a clean fuel.

Jym, this is an obvious idiocy - hydrogen is not a pollutant.
Moreover, producing hydrogen cannot be done without causing pollution. 

I wonder if the rest of the stuff you post is as accurate as this.

Why didn't you catch it?  Do you even bother to read the things you
repost?

>                           Trash, Too

>Hydrogen also can be cheaply produced -- about 30 cents a
>gallon -- from organic waste via experimental techniques
>described by Dr. Roy McAllester of the American Hydrogen
>Association.  Decomposing organic waste will produce methane,
>a molecule made of hydrogen and carbon atoms, as a result of
>bacterial action.

Yes, but unfortunately there is too little biowaste to do anything
really useful.  I did a report on it back in highschool.  As I
remember it, the entire US production of biowaste in a year is enough
to give us power for a couple of days.

>Instead of using microbial digestion, hydrogen can be produced
>from organic waste by means of a solar parabolic reflector.
>The solar dish concentrates the energy of the sun's heat on a
>container of organic waste, breaking it up into hydrogen and
>carbon, in a process somewhat analogous to burning a piece of
>toast.  The advantage of this method over microbial digestion
>is that it is odor-free.

So what happens to the rest of the waste?  What other gases are produced?

>Dr. McAllester said the combination of solar and hydrogen
>technology could meet the energy needs of the world.  Solar
>hydrogen plants in Arizona and southern California could
>suffice to power the entire U.S.

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.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 13:43:29 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Arguments
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: na
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1a4k79INNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <3211.1460.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:

>>You are correct in saying that a great number of fossil-fueled plants
>>will be built in the near future since the DOE says that by the year
>>2000 the average age of coal-fired plants in the United States will be
>>38 years, gas-fired - 42 years, and that of oil-fired - 47 years. But it
>>is a near certainty that many of these plants will be replaced by wind,
>>solar and (most important) energy conservation, especially in California
>>where it is nearly impossible to build either a nuclear or a
>>fossil-fueled plant.
>
CL> That's OK, we just build our fossil-fueled plants in other states.

With this concise display of candor, Mr. Lydick has revealed the
California strategy.  Grow, grow, grow, and send the environmental bills
elsewhere.  It won't be too long before some wag decides that electric
cars are pollution-free because the air pollution from coal combustion
occurs in Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, or some other outback.  


Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Organization: LSI Logic/Headland Technology
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:25:22 GMT

In article <54072@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>What I'd like to believe is that you are eventually going to generate
>either the apology or the reference  that you owe me. Perhaps you've
>forgotten your promise already? I may have the old posts on disk if you'd
>like a reminder.

No apology (except for my statement about containments being designed
for an uncontained meltdown of the pressure vessel, which did turn out
to be incorrect.)  Not being a professional student, I don't have
access to a library which contains these journals that you pick bits
out of.  I've checked the public libraries.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
LSI Logic/Headland Products               No whimper, no blast.
sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp                  His life's goal accomplished,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                         Zero risk at last.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 25 Sep 92 22:43:01 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep23.205348.23301@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <53807@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>I must live in a backwater , because the engineering of machines 
>>which are designed to avoid failure modes not forseen by the designers
>>is not a well known art here.
>
>It's well-known and routine elsewhere.  A nuclear reactor, for instance, is 
>a very "forgiving" piece of machinery that has over and over again 
>in the past compensated for unforseen effects.  At the very worst, this is
>accomplished by the fact that nuclear accidents tend to progress on a very
>slow time-scale compared to, say, oil refinery or hydro dam accidents.

There is a difference between a "forgiving" piece of machinery and one which
has been designed to compensate for unforseen problems.  Those of us not
blessed with prescience sometimes find that we have designed systems which
are not forgiving in the right places, or which are redundant everywhere
but at the actual point of failure which we didn't think of.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:02:35 GMT

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.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebutt
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:16:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

GC>Solar
GC>and indirect solar are significantly higher cost sources of electricity
GC>than coal or nuclear. Their use would raise busbar prices sharply.
GC>Natural gas is only a short term solution, and it still emits CO2
GC>and NOx pollutants as a *routine* part of it's operation. It *is*
GC>the current best alternative to nuclear however. If we pin our hopes
GC>on a clean and cost effective replacement for natural gas generation
GC>being developed in the next 50 years, we may be alright, but that's
GC>a mighty big if on which to gamble the future of industrial civilization.
GC>We have better uses for natural gas than generating electricity. There
GC>aren't many better uses for nuclear power than generating electricity.

You don't seem to have much faith in the future of the EPRI sponsored,
5 cent/kWh, "nickel", wind turbine. According to my meager research this
turbine will back nuclear with it's average cost of 5.97 cents/kWh off
the map. Installed cost of this turbine (like coal-fired) is about
$1/watt as opposed to $3/watt for nuclear.

My sources are the June 1990 "EPRI Journal", page 15, about the turbine
and DOE/EIA-0455(90) "Electric Plant Cost and Power Production Expenses
1990", page 14 about nuclear average generation expenses.

EPRI in the cited article seemed quite confident that this turbine will
compete with coal-fired plants as well, but that is my only source at
the moment. Mr. Dietz implies that it will never happen.

A "three cent" turbine would really give them trouble.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
From: shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar)
Subject: How much oil is there left?
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:04:59 GMT


I have heard widely diverging views on how much oil is left on Earth, mostly by
politicians with an ax to grind.  I was wondering if anybody can give me
pointers to any real analyses of how much is left, how expensive it is to get
at it, etc.

Thanks
-- 
---
Subash Shankar                Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100
voice: (612) 782 7558         3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418
sshankar@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu or shankar@src.honeywell.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment