HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Transportation cost (was Re: Is car pooling for real?)
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:39:53 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:


>Do you drive without paying for insurance?  Many people in cities also have to
>pay for parking.

The insurance on my 75 Datsun Z works out to about a dollar a week.  
Read my previous post on the subject for details. I did not consider
it an expense worth accounting for.  Pay to park?  Never.  The only
time I've ever had to do that, I was a senior manager at a software
company and the company picked up the tab.  Pay parking is another 
flag that tells me "stay away."  If I occasionally have to pay to park
in connection with my consulting, my client pays.  I even make 5% 
in the process (billing fee.)

>If your logic regarding the cost of owning and using a car neglects factors
>such as insurance and parking, I have doubts of your "nuclear energy has zero
>environmental impact."  

My lifestyle simply did not fit into your preconceived notion of it.  One 
advantage to living in the Sunny South where greed has not yet been 
institutionalized is practices such as are being ascribed to other areas
of the country either don't exist or exist in such small areas that they
can be avoided.

>Did you leave out mining and refining, for example?

No.  The way this works is as an expert, I make an assertion and others
are free to challenge it.  I'll refute each challenge worthy of the time
with hard evidence or at least a reasoned opinion.  I long ago quit 
doing others' research for them.  I'll answer questions but I don't 
write too many tomes anymore.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: High-tech highways, chicken/egg (was: Is car pooling for real?
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:18:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.034641.4905@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
[...]
>Where high speed trains may really shine is as replacements for intercity
>airline travel. Bullet trains capable of 300 MPH are possible that can
>travel directly from city center to city center at reduced cost and reduced
>travel time compared to airliners. This option is used in Japan and France.

Is this really the case?  I mean, the unit cost of an airliner is almost
certainly more than the cost of a bullet train with equivalent capacity, but
is the bullet train going to be more efficient?  That is, in the long term,
which will be more cost-effective?

The coefficient of drag for an airliner is something like .05, if I remember
right.  How does the Cd of a bullet train compare?  The frontal area of the
bullet train is a bit less, but is it that much less?

The airliner is running with gas turbines that, for most of the travel time,
are running at close to peak efficiency.  How does the overall efficiency
of an airliner's power system compare with that of the bullet train?

Of course, if you're talking about a bullet train that's running in an
evacuated tunnel, the bullet train almost certainly wins (Cd?  We don't
need no steenking Cd  :-).

Exactly why would the travel time of the airliner be more than the travel
time of the bullet train?

>Gary


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: marcos@pdx047 (Marcos O. Camargo)
Subject: Company address needed
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:40:09 GMT

I am looking for the address/phone  of a company that manufactures
windmills that are connected o an air compressor.  The name
of the company is Browjon.

Thanks,
 


-- 
Marcos O. Camargo             |  e-mail:  marcos@ichips.intel.com
Intel Corp.  JF1-19           |  phone :  (503) 696-4273
5200 N.E. Elam Young Parkway  |  FAX   :  (503) 681-9017
Hillsboro, Oregon  97124      |
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: eerbl@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Need info on US Windpower 33/300 and similar machines.
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:59:37 GMT


Can anyoune please tell me about the US Windpower 33/300 variable speed
wind generator.

Specifically what kind of machine it uses for its generator, What sort of
energy conversion it uses and what control strategy it uses for loading the
generator.

Also if there is any engineer from US Windpower or any other windpower
company involved in variable speed wind generators or wind generators using
a CVT of some form, reading this, please drop me an email.

Russel B. Lunney
eerbl@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Electrical Engineering Department,
University of Newcastle, Australia.


Xref: sparky sci.energy:3730 talk.environment:3016
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Pioneer Project: Solar Hydrogn Power
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:19:58 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Jul25.053753.10053@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>[Re: hydrogen economy]

>Delivery of hydrogen by pipeline requires pumps of sixty times the
>capacity of ordinary natural gas pipeline pumping systems. In addition,
>the piping is exposed to hydrogen embrittlement. These problems have
>solutions, but again they aren't cheap.

These don't seem to have prevented 'water gas' plants in the 1800's
from selling a mixture of CO and H2 ...

I presume technology has improved since 1800 ...

>gas recirculation and special chamber designs have allowed it to work in
>auto engines.

please insert 'piston' between 'auto' and 'engines'.  Is there any 
special work that would have to be done to run a turbine on hydrogen?

>Safety is a big plus for hydrogen. Because it is a lighter than air
>gas, it rises quickly from an accident site taking any fire with it.
>This is in contrast to gasoline or natural gas where the fuel, and
>fire, remain at the accident site.

Nope.  Natural Gas is also lighter than air and rises away from 
an accident site.  That is why CNG is approved for use as stove 
fuel on boats, but propane and gasoline are discourage.

LPG and LNG are, being liquids, heavier than air ... did you mean LNG?

-- 

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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Pioneer Project: Solar Hydrogn Power
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:30:59 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul25164425@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>The key question about hydrogen is whether hydrogen pipelines are
>a more economical way to transmit energy from the sunny parts of
>the country than electric transmission systems.  The direct current
>intertie between the Pacific Northwest and California, including
>Southern California, transmits power almost as far as would be required
>by a massive solar system.

	Actually,  I just had another crazy idea.  Suppose that we find a
way to use the new liquid nitrogen superconductors to build an undersea
DC power transmission grid.  By having the system work in a coaxial
configuration,  this wouldn't even create magnetic disturbances (won't
be accused of causing whales to beach).  The only link that would necessarily
need to be run under the sea would be through the Bering Strait if we
would rather run lines underground.  If power transmission could be made
very inexpensive on a global basis,  we could transport power from the
sunny side of the world to everywhere else.  (Or from the geothermal fields
in Iceland or any other great source of sustainable energy).



-- 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: High-tech highways, chicken/egg (was: Is car pooling for real?
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:39:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.034641.4905@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Add in it's fixed routes that limit
>travel flexibility, and it's a loser except in specialized situations,
>mostly strip cities confined by geography. Spoke and hub systems require
>backtracking for cross town travel and that means that many *extra*
>passenger miles are required to deliver a person from start to destination
>compared to a directly routed car.

Actually, spoke and hub systems aren't the only way to go in a city.  In Los
Angeles, for example, the RTD uses spoke and hub as well as routes circling the
city.  So, while I COULD travel from Pasadena to Hollywood by way of 5th and
Spring streets in downtown Los Angeles, I can also travel from Pasadena to
Hollywood via Glendale and beautiful downtown Burbank.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,sci.environment
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Social Engineering -- and Awareness (was: Is car pooling for real?)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:25:52 GMT

In article <Jym.24Jul1992.9am5@naughty-peahen.org> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>> Folks, you just can't get people to car pool.  20th century
>>> Westerners, at least, are just too independent.
>
>=+= But when you take a good look at it, you see that this
>independence is illusory.  Not only is this kind of commuting
>heavily dependent on a powerful infrastructure (the oil biz),
>it's also a huge sink of money (and thus time).

     [other discussion deleted]

     Is the point that 'we are not independent anyway, so someone
     might as well explicitly tell us what to do'?

     Curious.

                         dale bass

--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Pioneer Project: Solar Hydrogn Power
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:26:54 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul25164425@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>For cars, I think liquid hydrogen is the only way to achieve the
>energy densities required. 

I seem to remember that hydride systems have higher energy density
than LH2 systems.  Anyone have 'the numbers' handy?

-- 

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.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:3593 misc.consumers.house:9725
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Power CoGeneration     ...  Lets start over.
Date: 14 Jul 92 04:23:57 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Jul9.213545.20391@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Jul9.044437.4948@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>So you think you can make power for less money than the electric
>>utility. What's your secret?
>	1)  He doesn't have to meet the reliability constraints that the power
>	    company does (please note that he said he needs the grid).
>	2)  I don't recall him telling us at what rate he's amortizing his
>	    investment;
>	3)  He doesn't have to pay for maintenance on miles and miles of wires
>	    and telephone poles.

He also doesn't have the astounding economies of scale and purchasing that
the utilities have.  

Given that the two things which most strongly drive the cost of 
electricity are the cost of capital and the cost of fuels, 
you will need to show that he can get capital at lower rates
than the utilities and fuel at lower prices.  

Lower enough to make up for the lost economies of scale in production.

The other costs are 'lost in the noise' ...

-- 
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: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Power CoGeneration     ...  Lets start over.
Date: 14 Jul 92 05:33:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.28162
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Jul9.213100.12058@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> mpb@troy.uucp (27331-
bunz) writes:

>For about $400.00 you can get a coleman 2Kw generator that

I got a 4 kW Coleman for $360, but they were closing out the Coleman
line in favor of another brand ... I got a pretty good deal ...

>could supply 720 KwH of electricity per month, if you only
>keep it running 12 hours per day.  I.e., you have lots of
>down time to change the oil/filter, fill the gas tank, etc.

The B&S Engine on the Coleman generator is going to need an
overhaul rather quickly with a 12/day run time ...  I'd guess
about 100 days if you are lucky (1200 hrs operation).

>Around here 720 KwH of electricity goes for around 100.00,
>so if you burned $2.00 of gas a day, you still come out $40.00
>a month ahead, so you have about a 10 month payback (given
>current interest rates :-()

Woa there... 12 hrs on 2 gallons?  More like 8 hours on 5 gallons...
These are not particularly efficient engines...  I think your
'profit' just went up in smoke...  Anyone with a 2kw Coleman want
to run if for a few hours into a load and post the fuel consumption?
I can do it for a 4 kW unit, but the thing is stored in cosmoline and
fuel preserver and I'd rather leave it packed for storage...

>The only problem is the NOISE.

and the exhaust (no cat converter, inefficient carb. design, heads made
to build easy not for efficiency, etc....), and the low durability,
and the need to buy, haul, store and handle carcinogenic fuel, and ...

Remember that these are built for light duty emergency and short term uses.
The are built to be cheap to build, not fuel efficient.

You CAN get a nice long life diesel unit, but it will cost you more
like $2-4,000.  It will last much longer and be far more frugal with fuel.

Remember also that most places won't let you store more than a few gallons
of gasoline or your fire insurance will be void.  (You will be informed
of this just AFTER the fire, when the company sees a nice way to dodge
paying you...)

Remember also that gasoline is carcinogenic.  You are at far higher risk
of dying from lung cancer from the fumes than from nuclear plant or
remote coal burning.

That is why cogeneration plants usually use natural gas or diesel.  One
could easily get a decent natural gas generator and eliminate most of the
problems.  You can put it in a double wall cinder block power house to
muffle the noise.  The whole works should come in at about $5,000 and have
far better fuel figures.  If you capture the waste heat, then you have a
real money maker...  I think something like $0.05/kW-hr. if I remember
right... not counting labor costs or sinking funds for equipment replacement.
-- 
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: kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia (Kershner Wyatt)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: What I've done to my house (conservation)
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:55:11 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC

>>>how much square footage do you have in your house?
>
>>About 1000.  It is a dinky California single story suburban from
>>about 40 years ago... Stuco outside, asphalt composite shingles,
>>wood framed, drywall inside.  Plus attached garage.

>Whew!  Had me worried there for a bit.  Your power bill is scaling
>closer to mine now.  I have 2500 sq feet in the living spaces
>and 2000 in the heated and conditioned basement office.  I could do 
>a bit more work and probably get it equivalent.

I was thinking you had a larger place too (I live in a 2000 sq ft
house--and there wasn't anyway that I was getting near that.

>>>I cut my power bill in HALF by replacing a 20 yr old unit with one with an
>>>SEER of 12.  WELL worth the money.  With the amount of space I cool and 
>>>the fact that I keep it 68 degrees, the system will pay for itself in 
>>>a year.
 
Between the additional r-19 batts we added up top this past winter, 12SEER
A/C / Hi-efficiency 80,000 BTU gas pack replacement, programmable "smart"
thermostat from Honeywell, and having the folks work on changing ductwork
airflow, our electricity/gas bills are significantly lower even though we
have had some nasty hot, muggy, humiture this year (Columbia, SC-Site of 
the summer heatsink olympics).  Best part was that we didn't have to start
cooling til much later this year--added insulation I credit, with judicious
opening/closing of the windows, and controlled air movement.  I won't tolerate
a house getting above 78 deg in the summer--the AC will come on.

Best thing that happened was the old gaspac unit dying last winter...(I say
that now, don't ask what I said then)
-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: House Sized constant duty (co)-generator
Summary: Probably not efficient or economical.
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:06:49 GMT

In article <28390@goofy.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>It seems really odd to me that I should be able to power my whole
>house from a 1 hp generator (if it was well designed and efficient)
>by having power buffered in a battery bank.

Yes, you could.  I don't think it's a good idea, though.

>What is wrong with this picture?  A 1 hp high efficiency high
>reliability natural gas generator produces a constant 500 watts
>or so.  Any excess above immediate needs is sent to a battery bank.
>Any needs above 500w is met by a good (ala Trace) inverter.  The
>excess heat is used in domestic water heating and space heating/cooling.

Things wrong with the picture:

1.)	Suppose the demand is above 500 watts for a protracted period?
	When your storage is depleted, you're in trouble.  This argues
	for a generator of greater capacity which cycles on and off.

2.)	Engines in the 500 W output range tend to be inefficient due
	to high surface/volume ratio.  A higher power engine would be
	larger and more efficient.

>How small could one of these be made?  It seems to me that a 1 hp
>gas turbine should be about the size of a quart jar!  Add a generator
>about the size of a car alternator and you have a whole system that 
>would fit in a small lead and foam lined concrete box under the water 
>heater tank.

Neat idea, but I think the smallest reasonable turbine is in the
10 KW class (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).
And they *are* tiny; a 10 KW alternator running at turbine speeds
is about the size of a coffee cup.

When the zirconia-electrolyte fuel cells are available, you'll be
able to run a 60% efficient generator on natural gas.  Keep it hot
and don't worry about storage, just generate as you need it.  Waste
heat is at ~1800 F, so you could even put it through a secondary
heat engine before using it for space heat or hot water.  Run a heat
pump when you need more heat than your electric demand generates.
-- 
Russ Cage   wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: Pioneer Project: Solar Hydrogn Power
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:28:40 GMT


In article <11114@cis.rand.org>, Rodger_Madison@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison) writes:
|> In article <JMC.92Jul23212906@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

|> > How will the cost of solar produced hydrogen compare with the
|> > cost of nuclear produced hydrogen.

|> I would guess that on a small scale it is almost certainly cheaper.
|> 
|> I wonder myself about the chemistry of the fuel cells.  I seem to recall
|> hearing on one the Shuttle (or perhaps even Apollo) related broadcasts,
|> that some of the materials in fuels cell (presumably catalysts) are
|> potentially toxic.  Does anyone out there know how they work, what they
|> contain, service life, disposal procedures, etc?


To address the last point first:  the shuttle uses alkaline fuels cells,
which use concentrated potassium hydroxide as the electrolyte.  Electrodes
are platinum.  KOH is corrosive and caustic, but does not present
a disposal hazard once neutralized.  A terrestrial alkaline electrolytic
cell would perhaps use nickel rather than platinum, since nickel
is much cheaper.

Now, as to cost:  nuclear would almost certainly be cheaper.  The scale
argument is not appropriate, since there is no reason why a prototype
electrolysis unit must use all the output of a nuclear plant -- and we
already *have* nuclear power plants of large size selling electricity
more cheaply than PV presently can.  Another important consideration is
duty cycle.  High efficiency electrolyzers are not free; you want to run
them around the clock, and all year round -- that is, off of baseload
power.  PV cell output is low duty cycle.

Then, motivation:  just *why* electrolysis?  If you want hydrogen,
it's much cheaper to get via steam-reforming of methane.  This
produces CO2, granted, but it does so in a central plant, and the
CO2 could conceivably be scrubbed out for ocean disposal (the same
applies to hydrogen from coal/oxygen/steam).  Even if you don't want
to dispose of CO2 in the ocean, methane provides a feedstock
for hydrogen production.  Methane pyrolysis

	CH4 --> C + 2 H2 (-9 kcal/mole H2 )

uses much less energy that water electrolysis

	H2O --> H2 + 1/2 O2 (-63 kcal/mole H2).

Moreover, in pyrolysis the energy input is as high grade heat (1100 C),
not as electricity.  One could drive the first reaction by burning
about 15% of the hydrogen that comes off.  The carbon comes out as
the solid element, and can be buried.

Finally: if you are building a large scale electrolysis system, it
isn't that hard to modify it to also perform hydrogen isotope separation.
You'd have to assume that in a global solar/hydrogen economy,
any country that can make hydrogen can also make heavy water.  If you
have heavy water, you can build a nuclear reactor using unenriched uranium
(which is abundant and not subject to global controls).  Heavy water
reactors appear to be a favorite route for nuclear proliferation, as
exhibited by both India and Israel.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu