HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Passive Solar-Thermal Electric?
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:09:15 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

Assuming that flat-plate passive heating to c250F is possible with collector
efficiencies of about 50%--boiling some refrigerant--what's the opinion on
passive solar-thermal electric?

Could a turbine be developed to proude mechanical power at 15%?  If so, the
system would approximate 5 or 6% total efficiency.

Low capitol cost would be the advantage.  Could it offset poor efficiency?

I suppose the $64 question is:  just how much cheaper ARE double-glass
passive-solar collectors than, say, low-efficiency photovoltaic panels?  
Could they be produced cheaper in VERY large units?

It's a curious scenario--acres of el-cheapo passive solar collectors strewn
all over Arizona, boiling Freon-12 or something...  Hmm.
  
CM

-- 
       Craig Meyer                 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: mancus@zaphod.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus/MDSSC)
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:13:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.183340.20348@mlb.semi.harris.com> jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:
> The answer to the fear of having an energy system that noone will be 
>willing to service for you is, of course, to acquire or build a system
>which you are capable of understanding and maintaining yourself. This
>is referred to as "appropriate technology" in some circles, though it
>does smack of condescension when somebody tries to decide what sort of
>technology is appropriate for somebody else. 

> It's not like solenoid valves or copper pipe are likely to disappear
>from the face of the earth. However, neither are laziness, greed or peoples'
>desire to treat things as appliances even when they are actually dependencies.

 Right.  If you are talking about a mass-market technology rather than
an experimenter's dream, it has to maintainable by the local plumber,
electrician, etc., or else the company must provide an affordable aftermarket
repair service.  Considering the number of people I know who don't even
change the oil in their own cars, telling them to repair their own
home energy system is a joke.  There are large numbers of people today who
are not technically literate and don't care to become so.

-- 
| Keith Mancus    <mancus@cheers.jsc.nasa.gov>                           |
|                 N5WVR                                                  |
|  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
|  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: amc@mccartney.stortek.com (Alan McCartney(support services))
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:25:56 GMT

> Item 3---People won't buy passive solar homes because they are
ugly.

Many ugly people have purchased passive solar homes, I did! :-)

More seriously,

I purchased a passive solar, earth bermed house in a small Colorado
mountain town (elev. 8500') 2 years ago.

Basic description is "looks average for a mountain resort chalet except
is has a lot of windows on the south side".

It's an all-electric house w/ baseboard resistance heat as backup to a
wood-burning stove.

Avg electricity bill is $28/month.
Avg wood bill is $180/year (2 cords).

The very high mass of the house (3 sides 8" thich concrete, bermed,
4" concrete/tile floor) provides the thermal lag needed to keep the
house comfortably warm when either a) the sun has been out all day or
b) the stove was fired on cloudy days (very few in CO).

The house is by no means 90% solar heated. Having spent 15 years researching
and designing solar homes as a "hobby", I can say that a 90% passive solar
is achieveable but at the expense of conventional construction techniques.
Unconventional design and construction (Note: looks conventional) are costly
affairs (unless you're an AIA w/ contracting experience).

BTW, I received a call from an insurance company offering a comparison
quote for homeowner's insurance. Was asked the usual questions. When it
came to "what is your primary heat source?" I replied that I thought it
was solar. I then explained that I had electric, wood and solar as potential
heat sources. The conversation abruptly ended with the ins. rep saying
"We won't insure anything that's solar". The rep didn't ask whether it was
passive, active, central, etc.

I'm about to send off a nasty-gram to my mortage holder, who referred the
insurance company, for a) an unsolicited referral and b) referring a *very*
unenlightened insurance company.

C'mon Bill, reinstate the alternative energy and conservation tax breaks!!

Alan McCartney (StorageTek, Louisville, CO)
amc@blackcat.stortek.com
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 12 Dec 92 05:16:06 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <29219@castle.ed.ac.uk: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
:	Mr Ng also forgot that no-one was claiming a 0.5ng lethal dose,
:but a 0.5ng harmful dose.

Unfortunately the original article is no longer on my system so I can not
confirm nor deny this statement.  If I was incorrect, my apologies, my
personal belief is that the person said lethal.

:This was intended as an indication,not an LD50.
:The most efficient distribution for particles(from the point of view of
:killing people) would be a roughly uniform 70 micrograms,IMHO,as the
:best figure I've been given for a 100% lethal dose is about 1
:microgram/kg, when inhaled.

Bernard L. Cohen has said that 1 pound will give 2 million cases of lung
cancer, presuming of course that everyone stands in line and allows 0.2
milligrams to be inserted into their lungs.  ( 1pound / 2million cancers
is 0.45 kilogram / 2 million cancers is 450,000 milligram / 2 million cancers
is 0.45 milligram / 2 cancers is 0.2 milligram per cancer).  Source: The
Nuclear Energy Option, by Bernard L. Cohen, page 253.  Also note this is
to get lung cancer, no estimates on the death rates for lung cancer are
available.  Anyone know?

Oh yes, I have a value for the lethal dose of botulinum toxin: 0.1 MICRO GRAM.
Source: Discover, August 1992, page 32.  Article on Ed Schantz, a guy who
makes the stuff for a living.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:18:47 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec14.174629.23752@pmafire.inel.gov>, russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:

|> Note that on an energy basis, the EV is not more efficient than an IC
|> vehicle of comparable (or even superior) performance characteristics. 
|> On a CO2 per mile, it is worse.
|> 
The EV may not be more efficient, but its batteries can be charged
at off peak times.  This  (the peak reduction) is something the
Electric Power industry is interested in.  Is CO2 production worse
if the electricity is produced by Nuclear, Solar, wind, or hydro?

|> All that the EV offers is an opportunity to shift pollution from the
|> point of use (abuse, if you like) to somewhere else.  This is an
|> externalization of environmental costs, and I would prefer to keep the
|> clean regions of our country clean.
|> 
This is a good point, but sometimes pollution is not really a problem
if its density is low enough.

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:33:49 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <1992Dec16.190510.446@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, ghg@en.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.192918.1@vax.sonoma.edu> oberland@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>>Someone commented about Ni-Cads costing 10K+ and Ni-H going for 30K+.
>>By the time I need to replace those Ni-H(a LONNNNG time), I need only
>>pay a fraction of that price.  Look at Ni-cads:5 years ago, they cost much
>>more.  consider this: I can get a D-cell NiCad for about 2 dollars, most of
>>which is packaging and casing that is 1.2v@4-5AH.   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Where can you get the "High Capacity" (4-5AM) D cells for $2?
> I can believe a "C" cell in a D case (~1.5AH) for $2.  Radio Shaft
> 4AH D cells are $7.95  ($4.95 when on sale once/year).. Other sources
> of 4AH D cells are often over $10 each.
> --ghg

I may be a LITTLE off, but last time I checked, IF I bought more than, say, a
couple dozen I can get them for really cheap from the manafacturer.

EGADS!  You know what RS marks things up for?
BTW, my figure was for ONE cell, not a 2-pack, as RS sells fothem.

If I was a large auto manafacturer, I could get Ni-cads for much less.

one note: The local electronics stors sells ni-cads for 2.00 each.  They are
surplus, but they check out perfectly.  You may not be able to find simmilar
dealslocally.

Large cells are much easier to make, and NI-H should drop in price quite a bit
in four years(when the EV's come out).  Ni-Cads, IMO, will be obsolete in a
couple years.
From: pharris@roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Rape Oil as transport fuel
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:26:36 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: tellus.roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au
Keywords: biofuel rape transport Europe

I believe that untreated rape oil will cause excessive carbon deposits in
an engine and gives a fish and chip shop smell to the exhaust gases!

Regards, Paul Harris
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: IGNORANCE is BLISS - But EDUCATION is SEXIST
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 05:40:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.192455.20852@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>Greenpeace dresses up in power plant costumes and parades around a parking
>>lot.

>	He stared back at me, white with contempt. "Have you ever
>  considered," he said, "the possibility that the soldier may be right".
>
>				- "Remember the Flowers", Paul Gruchow
>				   (c) Journal of Gastronomy
>
>Don't take your education so seriously, Tino. And never underestimate
>your opponents, especially when they wear costumes.

The above "journal article" adds more evidence to the fact that science,
not name-calling, will prevail. 

Are you suggesting that I give up my present endevours and, perhaps, dress
up as a tree?

No, thanks...

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy,rec.autos.tech,sci.electronics
From: kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Followup-To: rec.autos.tech
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:33:20 GMT

In article <51664@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

>...And design a flawless flywheel, so it doesn't ever blow up on its own.

>The only good answers to this problem that I can come up with (and this
>takes too much wild imagination):
...
>3) dump the power to something that can use it that quickly.  I don't
>   know of many such things - some big lasers can eat up power fast, but
>   where would you shoot the laser, and how could any mechanism capable
>   of eating up the power quickly survive a collision?

You're missing the obvious- dump the energy into your flux capacitor. You'll
need to retrofit an onboard computer to your time machine that will record
the time of impact, and reset the "TO" time co-ordinate to a minute or two
before the accident (or even flywheel structural failure, if your 'wheel
was made by GM or Ford), with a warning light on the "ABSOLUTE" time 
marker (any other indication would be cancelled out when you go back in
time). 

This way, you'll be driving along, a warning will occur, and you just pull
over, get *away* from the car, and you'll be all set. (There's a couple of
relativistic time paradoxes there I haven't addressed, but this is off 
the top of my head- sue me).

How could you forget this? Duhhh....

	-Kenny
-- 
Kenny Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142	+1 617 621 7306
kenny@osf.osf.org			OSF has nothing to do with this post.
	  Religion: The longest-running gag ever played on Mankind.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:58:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.175849.1@vax.sonoma.edu> oberland@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>One more note:
>Most of the engine wear that occurs happens when you start the vehicle.
>I may only drive 5000 miles a year, but I drive it almost every day.
>
>I may only go 5K a year, but my engine and transmission are getting
>more like 20K+ of highway driving a year(I don't do much Highway driving,
>either)

With the short trips you are taking, serious consideration should be
given to a bicycle, at least when the weather is nice. You are absolutely
correct that very short trips that don't let the vehicle come up to
operating temperature are very hard on the vehicle. I try to plan my
trips so that I can combine several trips into one to avoid this situation.
Hot starts aren't nearly as hard on the vehicle as cold starts.

>Compare 50K on, say, a delivery vehicle to get a more realistic average.
>Also, if I had a stick, all those short trips would burn my clutch out
>fairly fast(I used to deliver pizzas(their car) and the clutch went out 
>at LEAST every year.)

Even with stop and go driving, a clutch shouldn't wear out this fast
unless it was abused by the driver. A friend of mine drives a rural
mail route and his straight shift 1986 Ford Ranger is still on the
original clutch. It's those 30 minute or less drag races that were
wearing out the pizza delivery car. :-)

Gary
From: jeh@cmkrnl.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:05:42 GMT
Followup-To: sci.energy
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego, CA

In article <51664@seismo.CSS.GOV>, stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.010235.986@cmkrnl.com>, jeh@cmkrnl.com writes:
>> In article <1goebdINNik@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>> [...] Ultimately *all* the released energy ends up as heat.  
>> 
>> > In other words:  BOOM!
>> 
>> Couldn't have said it better myself. 
> Nor could I.  I find it hard to fathom that people are actually arguing about
> this.  

I think it's called "wishful thinking".  

To quote Don Lancaster:  "Too many alternative-energy types either never heard
of the laws of thermodynamics, or else they expect Congress to repeal them." 

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Internet:  jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh
Newsgroups: sci.energy,rec.autos.tech
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:40:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.144531.16684@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>A pound of gas has 118,000 BTU and there are 7 pounds to the gallon.
>So a gallon of gas has 826,000 BTU. A BTU is 293e-6 kWH, so a gallon
>of gas is equivalent to 242 kWH. IC engines are about 23% efficient,
>so a gallon of gas is equivalent to 55.66 kWH. At $.11 a kWH, a gallon
>of gas is equivalent to $6.12 of electricity. So gas has to reach
>$6.12 a gallon before electricity becomes cost competitive. And that's

Also if everyone uses electricity, the government will find some way
to put a road tax on electricity used in EVs too.

-- 
My opinions are my own.

Xref: sparky sci.energy:6288 sci.electronics:21230
From: geek+@CMU.EDU (Brian E. Gallew)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 20 Dec 92 11:41:20 GMT
	<BzJHE7.B8@xrtll.uucp>
Organization: Administrative Computing & Info Services, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

rsnider@xrtll.uucp (Richard Snider) writes:
[ lots deleted] 
> I personally would like to see  large flywheel storage of energy in
> vehicals, but I don't think it will happen, the flywheel is better suited
> to energy storage in stationary conditions.

OK.  Here is one *I* would like to see. How about flywheel application
in uninterruptable power supplies?  The energy density should be a lot
higher, *and* they should be a lot lower maintenance.  I think someone
mentioned drawing power directly from the flywheel (basically using it
as a generator).  could this concept be broadened where you have both
a power-in and a power-out path going at the same time?  Wouldn't this
also tend to stop power surges and so forth?  Am I simply stupid?


                                  -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Are they dead?"                                                      |
| "Does it matter?"                                                     |
|   - Pugsley and Wednesday in "The Addams Family."                     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ghg@en.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:05:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.192918.1@vax.sonoma.edu> oberland@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>Someone commented about Ni-Cads costing 10K+ and Ni-H going for 30K+.
>By the time I need to replace those Ni-H(a LONNNNG time), I need only
>pay a fraction of that price.  Look at Ni-cads:5 years ago, they cost much
>more.  consider this: I can get a D-cell NiCad for about 2 dollars, most of
>which is packaging and casing that is 1.2v@4-5AH.   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Where can you get the "High Capacity" (4-5AM) D cells for $2?
I can believe a "C" cell in a D case (~1.5AH) for $2.  Radio Shaft
4AH D cells are $7.95  ($4.95 when on sale once/year).. Other sources
of 4AH D cells are often over $10 each.
--ghg
From: dans@solbourne.com (Dan Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Date: 16 Dec 1992 14:23:09 -0700
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
NNTP-Posting-Host: ollie.solbourne.com

In article <1992Dec16.094517.11125@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <1gmp3mINNhpi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>>Item 3---People won't buy passive solar homes because they are
>>ugly.
>>
>>However, I would substitute the word ==non conformist== rather
>>than ugly.  There is always that perennial fear in terms of
>>real estate value: if the owners want to sell some day, will
>>the home be too odd in appearance to keep up with r.e. value,
>>and will the neighbors worry about having such a house on
>>their block, etc. etc.
>
>Also, I would have to add that if the existing solar technology in that 
>house happens to be phased out, you've got a several hundred thousand 
>dollar "experiment" on your hands. People buy houses for security, and
>don't want to have to rebuild it 10-15 years down the line.
>
>Tino
>-- 
	Tino,
Maybe you could explain how passive solar technology is "phased out"
making your home less valuable? The sun comes up, shines in, warms the
storage medium, thus warming the home. Simple. The cliff homes at Mesa
Verde still absorb heat the way they did when built X thousand years ago.
If you're talking style, homes need to be remodeled every 40 years, passive
solar or not. If you're talking about storage medium, what is the life 
expectancy of eutectic salts, or other phase change storage media? Could
technology create a more efficient storage medium to replace your obsolete
10-15 year old  medium? I expect so.
	When the book was written in 1982, natural gas prices were expected
to triple by 1986 when the tax credits for active solar were phased out. As
it turned out gas prices were less than they were in 1982 due to the natural
gas glut. The active solar industry shrank dramatically, and home buyers
didn`t flock to the passive homes because they didn't need to worry about
the costs of heating traditional home styles. With todays emphasis on 
light, airy spaces, passive solar designs should be right at home.(PUN)

				Dan Scott
				Solbourne Computer,  Inc.

Disclaimer: I'm  not in a position to know Solbournes opinions...yet.

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:24:12 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec11.154137.15298@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

|> more difficult to repair.  Increasing the mileage of a car from 30 to
|> 40 mpg only saves about $1300 or so over the (say) 150,000 mile life
                           ^^^^^
|> of the car.  This savings would be spread over years in the future,
|> while the higher price of the car would have to be paid up front.

Bingo.  So lets raise the price of gas to $10/gal and it will
then be economical for us all to drive electric cars. ;?)

Kevin
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Reference on Pu and Toxicology
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 14:56:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.053327.16941@sugra.uucp>, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
> 
> I would both references.  Going to be an interesting book to leave on
> my desk now that its time for year end bonuses :-).  I would like to use
> what I copied out of "Handbook on Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds" by Hans G.
> Seiler and Helmut Sigel, but they use units like Bq and Sv, of which I
> lack the conversion units to more familar terms like grams.
> 
> -- 
> Kenneth Ng
> Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
> Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
> 
> 

Sorry to take so long, Kenneth, but here are the two books I found:

On Plutonium:  "The Environmental and Biological Behaviour of Plutonium and
                Some Other Transuranium Elements"
                A report by an NEA Group of Experts
                Nuclear Energy Agency
                Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
                September 1981

On Toxicology:  "Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons"
                by Casarett and Doull
                4th Edtion
                1991

Also Bq stands for becquerel and is a measure of activity where
    1 Bq = 2.7027e-11 Curies

and Sv stands for sievert and is a measure of dose equivalent where
    1 Sv = 100 rem

Hope this helps.

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.
Newsgroups: sci.energy