HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Windplants
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:50:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

                WIND ENERGY AND LAND USE

A  concern  sometimes heard when considering  constructing  wind-
plants (a conglomeration of windmills, or "wind turbines") is the
amount  of land that is required to generate significant  amounts
of  electricity. Land could be used for agriculture  or  ranching
purposes could be tied up for decades with wind turbines, so  the
theory goes.

In  reality,  windplants can-and often  do-go  hand-in-hand  with
ranching  and  agriculture uses, and generally  provide  a  guar-
anteed, long-term source of income for ranchers and farmers.

A  1990 study by Paul Gipe and Associates, "Wind Energy Comes  of
Age",  notes that guaranteed land lease income for  ranchers  and
farmers  in the windfarms around California is $160 to  $400  per
acre  per year - "four to ten times that earned from  grazing  on
the arid lands of California."

Landowners  typically receive two to five percent of gross  reve-
nues as royalties, Generally, turbine spacing allows one  machine
(often a 100 kilowatt machine) per two acres of land. This  aver-
age  turbine  should  produce roughly 200,000 kWhs  for  a  gross
revenue  of  roughly $16,000. Thus, each machine  would  generate
$320 to $800 per year for the landowner.

An interview by the Oakland Tribune with the Walker family in the
Altamont  Pass,  California, area, confirmed  the  benefits.  "It
absolutely  saved the Walker family bacon" said Hugh Walker,  who
has about 700 turbines on his property. "It was a godsend in  the
time of need. We probably would have been forced to sell out."

How much land is required for the actual turbines and the  accom-
panying  roads?  Traditionally, between three and  five  percent.
However,  recent  windfarms in Northern Europe have  limited  the
total land use to two percent, leaving the vast majority of  land
still available for agriculture and ranching activities.

As more and more lawmakers show their concern for the break-up of
the  small  family farm and of the rural life in  general,  wind-
generate  electricity  can play a vital role  in  rural  economic
development and stability.

A  stable,  guaranteed  source of income for  the  family  farmer
accomplishes many social goals simultaneously. Increased economic
activity  through construction, operation and maintenance of  the
windplants, increased income for the rural landowners (leading to
even  greater  economic  activity) and  increased  stability  for
America's small cities and towns.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
           
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 15:02:04 GMT

In article <C0E7uB.M9y@encore.com>, wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
>
> If you saw the damage the storm did to the
> "hurricane-proof" buildings at Homestead AFB, you would realize that FPL
> was VERY lucky.
> 
> 
> William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com
>
> 

No, just that the "hurricane-proof" roof was not built properly and Turkey 
Point was since no such structural damage occurred.

Don Palmrose





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Domestic Hot Water Heaters - oil vs. electric
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:30:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.061133.19344@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com)) writes:

>I seem to recall that all water, from an underground source, will be at
>about the same temperature no matter what the surface temp is, 59F is
>what I recall.  That's why the bottom of my barn is 20 degrees nicer than
>the outside in the winter & summer, the earth acts as a nice heat-sink/source.

Picking them further, the ground temperature deep will be at the local
yearly average temperature which differs from location to location.
Here it's 54.6F.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: aa139@Freenet.carleton.ca (Mike Lynch)
Subject: Re: True Costs of French Commercial Nuclear Power 
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:51:15 GMT


If I recall, the French have an accounting treatment which I believe 
should be practiced elsewhere. The cost of transmission and distribution
of electricity is considered a public good (e.g. availability) and hence
is paid for out of general income taxes.  Electricity bills reflect only 
the cost of generation. Hence, actual kwhs consumed, a private good, is
billed to users.

In Ontario, this would mean that those cities now considering the
independent power production alternative would still have to pay for 
those costs associated with the maintenance of the bulk transmission 
and distribution system.

--
From: cir@festival.ed.ac.uk (C Revie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Wind power was Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:43:48 GMT

Wind power can be quite successfully integrated with agriculture,
judging from Danish experiences. Of course they don't have the distance
problems that the US faces. 

Somewhere in my files I have some data which I'll dig out


Chris
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: True Costs of French Commercial Nuclear Power (last time!)
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:54:15 GMT

In article <58550@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>You don't answer my questions. How much was invested? What's the return
>on equity? What evidence leads one to believe that the French government
>is getting a good return on the public's investment? I know that they
>generate power, and I'm prepared to believe that they export it. What's
>the *cost* though?

1991: 171.4 billion Fr in pre-tax sales
        1.9 billion Fr profit 
       12.0 billion Fr used to pay off debts

The 1992 results are not available for a couple months. (Source: Nuclear News, 
April 1992)

>>UK, Italy, and Switzerland. [Tino's note: Italy is paying through the nose
>
>Is there a high power transmission cable accross the English Channel?

Yep. A 2000 MWe cross-channel interconnection (NN,Apr 92). It's only 40 miles.

Breakdown of largest exports:

Total exports     53.4 TWh (=53.4 million MWh)

UK                16.8 TWh
Italy             14.0 TWh
Switzerland       13.1 TWh
Germany            5.5 TWh
Spain              0.2 TWh, due to weakness of interconnections in Spain

There were probably small exports to the Benelux countries to round out the 
list.

Also, noted in the Jan 93 issue of NN is a statement that France's air
pollution (SO2, NOX, etc) has decreased fivefold since the beginning of their
nuclear program. 

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:50:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.204853.25975@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> As I mentioned, John Hull and coworkers at ANL looked at various
> magnetic schemes.  The one they eventually went with used attractive
> magnetic levitation to supply the centripetal acceleration.

Oops, I thought you were referring only to how it was suspended against
gravity.

> There had to be an auxiliary system for startup, as the stability
> only holds in a certain range of ring angular velocities.  Also, note
> that the tension in the ring can be made arbitrarily small.  Their
> scheme had a characterstic ring decay time of up to a month(!).

That is good, but a month is probably longer than needed for power
purposes.  Possibly, due to the limited angular velocity range, this
wouldn't scale up to high enough speeds for really large power systems.
I can see a way to scale a low angular velocity flywheel up to get
large power - dig a circular tunnel (a little like the super conducting
super collider, but not that long), and install the ring rotor in that.
power stored will increase since both mass and radius have increased.
Since the ring is at low angular velocity, the stresses will be lower,
and the design could incorporate joints (allowing you to get the flywheel
into the tunnel).  Alternatively, a circular trench could be dug and the ring
dropped into it from above.  Hmm, assuming an iron ring, rectangular
cross-section 1 m wide and 2 m high, 100 m in radius, that's
M = 7.874 * 100 * 200 * 2 * pi * 10,000 / 1000 kg
  = 1e7 kg
  = 10000 metric tons
For a ring, moment of inertia is
I = M * R^2
  = 1e11 kg m^2
Energy is 0.5 * I * w^2, where w is angular velocity (radians/s)
Let's say we want to store 1000 MW-h of energy.  That's 3.6e12 J, so
w^2 = 3.6e12 / (0.5 * 1e11)
w = 8.5
or the ring would have to run at about 81 rpm.

Oh, well that is a little fast (rim velocity of 3060 kph) - maybe the
tunnel could be under a little vacuum so that velocity is below sound
speed.  Would magnetic confinement be affected by angular velocity alone
or does rim velocity matter as well?  1000 MW-h seems reasonable to ask for
such a large installation, but maybe it really is too much.  Or maybe
we could make the ring heavier, slowing it down.  If we doubled the weight
of the ring and lessened the expected storage to 100 MW-h, the rim speed
would drop to 600 kph, much closer to reality.  How much is the cheapest
steel, per ton?




> 
> Amusingly, this idea was motivated by Keith Lofstrom's Launch Loop;
> one of Hull et. al.'s papers refers his Analog article.
> 
> I haven't seen anything about this idea recently, so perhaps it
> had a serious problem, wasn't economical, or just no one wanted it.
--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:48:39 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
>>I do not know how USAF "hurricane-proof" specs compare with NRC "hurricane-
>>proof" specs, but I doubt they vary by a factor of two or three. I'll
>>repeat what I said: FPL was very lucky to escape Andrew with as little
>>damage to Turkey point as they sustained.

>Visit a plant sometime and observe the construction and you will understand
>just how "lucky" TP was.  Not meaning to sound smart-assed with that
>suggestion, simply suggesting a fact-finding trip.  

  <very good description deleted for bevity>

>Bottom line, the reason the TP plant, anthromorphicly speaking, yawned
>at the hurricane was not luck but design.

I've seen many pictures of nuke plant construction and am familiar with
the excesses of concrete poured. Frankly, I think public hysteria has
caused many to be overdesigned. But I also think the nuke industry is
stupid in pormoting plants in some locations.

Let's look at a scenario that isn't far fetched considering the actual damage.

Suppose the damaged stack had gone over in the wind, with some pieces
falling on one of the containment buildings, knocking some concrete off,
but only some chunks a foot or two deep. No breaching of the containment,
and no real danger of it either.

The news reports would say "Containment vessel at Turkey Point damaged",
the layman would think that means breached, the Greenpeacers (who have
a good presence here) would pitch their tents at the plant entrance and
the plant would be years, if ever, before splitting atoms again.

It doesn't take a containment breach to shut a plant down. Or create a
public uproar similar to TMI.


It was stupid to locate a plant where it could take the leading edge of a
hurricane, and FPL was lucky to get through it as well as they did.


William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com

"We trained hard,  but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing;  and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization."	-Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:01:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.054943.4227@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
> ED_max = 17000 Joule/kg = 4200 cal/kg = 4.2 Kcal/kg

I ended up with a higher energy density, probably because I assumed graphite
density and 1 Mpsi strength.  It still results in a very large flywheel
(a 500 kg cylindrical sheel 1 cm thick and 1 m diameter was 16 m long).

> This is low , compared to heat of combustion energy densities
> of organic compounds. I don't have the energy density of
> gasoline handy, but it must be on the order of 1000 Kcal/kg
> (similar to a hamburger), so that the flywheel is down by a factor

Much higher - hamburger is mostly water.  It's about 11,000.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Soybean Powered Zodiac
Date: 8 Jan 1993 14:12:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



Bryan Peterson and his inflatable zodiac with cabin atop
and powered by a 180 horsepower MerCruiser diesel powered
with esterified soybean oil, has completed the leg from
Oregon to Hawaii and plans a complete circumnavigation.
The boat is 24 feet long and has solar panels which can
supply up to 240 watts in full sun.
More than 200 vehicles in Missouri, Kansas, etc are
currently using biodiesel fuel and a similar fuel
made from rapeseed oil is used in buses and taxis
in Europe.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil (Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:39:32 GMT
Organization: CRDEC APG

In article <1993Jan4.220713.8624@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>I have seen studies showing wind resources as contour maps with the
>contours indicating percentage of local electricity energy
>available in wind form.  Much of the high plains was at 1000% so it
>has plenty to export.  By comparison California, with most of the
>
1000% of next-to-nothing is still not much.  

J. Matthews
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: aa246@Freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Pless)
Subject: Baseboard heaters for home?
Reply-To: aa246@Freenet.carleton.ca (Robert Pless)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:07:41 GMT


Can anyone tell me how bad/ok it would be to design an open
concept townhome (3 levels, all "loft-like" and open to
each floor below) but heated only with baseboards?

There is a ceiling fan on the third level (top).

Any thoughts?

Robert.
-- 
      _   /|            Robert Pless    (RPLESS@HPB.HWC.CA)
      \'o.O'            Childhood Immunization Division
 ACK! =()( )=           Health and Welfare Canada
         U  Phht!       952-1369  fax: 998-6413
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: hot water
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:41:13 GMT

In article <Jan08.212740.70825@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.011650.7437@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec24.193301.7343@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>|> >Could not a similar system (with an 'overheat shutoff interlock' on
>|> >the burner!) be put on water heaters?  
>|> 
>|> You have to interlock the damper to the burner. You can't allow
>|> combustion products to accumulate in the structure unless you want
>|> to kill the occupants. At times the burner isn't operating, assume
>|> electric ignition, then the damper should be closed.
>|> 
>Nice idea but building codes are very conservative.  As far
>as I am aware you can't have any flow restrictors at all simply
>because, as you mention, if they malfunctioned people might die.
>
>If anyone knows of any building codes that do in fact allow this
>I would be interested in hearing.

The codes allow dampers for *inlet* air, my furnace has one. It
doesn't matter from the energy efficiency standpoint whether the
damper is in the inlet or the exhaust. All that matters is that
the flow stops. With the damper in the inlet, the system is
passively safe. If the damper fails to open, the flame is smothered.
Then the *other* interlock that every code requires, the one that
shuts off the gas, takes over. Since that one is *not* passively
safe, but is *required*, disallowing interlocked exhaust dampers
is particularly stupid.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:13:59 GMT

In article <C0Hw54.BDB@encore.com>, wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
> Suppose the damaged stack had gone over in the wind, with some pieces
> falling on one of the containment buildings, knocking some concrete off,
> but only some chunks a foot or two deep. No breaching of the containment,
> and no real danger of it either.

I truly wish that had happened.  A whole chimney's worth of bricks slammed
into the containment structure at full hurricane force.  The resulting lack
of any damage at all (maybe some small scrapes) might have silenced a lot
of protests against nuclear power.  The structure is densely reinforced
concrete, at most you could break out a chunk a couple inches deep - not feet -
the rebar is too close together.  But the material would more likely just
flake at the point of impact from a ballistic brick - it would be hard to
notice.  If the brick hit head-on, the structure would suffer no damage at all.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh)
Subject: Electric airplanes ...(high P/W electric motors & fuel cells)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:16:04 GMT

I'm interested in replacing the engine in a small GA plane with an electric
motor and fuel cells. I've seen several articles in the lay press over the
past few years that indicate that this should be feasible. Unfortunately, those
articles were very short on details.

An electric airplane would have the following requirements:
	Prop speed: 2000 rpm - 2500 rpm.
	Maximum power requirement: 100 kw for 10 minutes at a time.
	Sustained power requirement: 75 kw.
	Lag time between idle power and 100% power: under 10 seconds.
	Total system (fuel cells + motor + batteries) weight: under 200 kg.

In particular, I could use information on any of the following:
    +	what are the best power/weight rations for electric motors?
    +	would there be any weight or efficiency advantage to building the
	motor into the duct for a ducted propeller (the duct would have a
	radius of about 1m)?

    +	what power/weight ratios can be expected from fuel cells that
	burn gasoline/alcohol (instead of hydrogen)?
    +	how about power/volume?
    +	for these fuel cells, what is the lag time to go from partial
	power to full power? If there is a long lag time (over 1 minute),
	is there anyway to reduce it in some circumstances (e.g. preheat
	all of the cells to operating temperature prior to landing)?
    +	what is the expected fuel efficiency for these cells?

    +	what the the best power/weight for batteries?
    +	does the power/weight improve if the batteries only need to survive
	a limited number (10?) cycles (e.g. only in emergencies)?

Any answers, pointers to articles or potential manufactures would be
appreciated. I will post a summary of all information sent to me via
e-mail.
-- 
... He was determined to discover the		David Pugh
underlying logic behind the universe.		...!seismo!cmucs!dep
    Which was going to be hard, because
there wasn't one.	_Mort_,  Terry Pratchett
Newsgroups: sci.energy