HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,ga.general
Subject: The New  Years Eve southeastern power bobble
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:02:51 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

I was talking to a friend of mine this weekend who works for TVA
and learned something very interesting. On new years eve at about
11:35, the power to my house dropped, came back and dropped again
twice like recloser breakers operating and then stayed on.  
I recalled the glitch because the TV guy noted that power dropped
all over Atlanta.

After my talk I know what caused it.

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Chattanooga, TN has installed a new 500kv Intertie
breaker in its switchyard.  Management at the plant dictated the breaker
would be placed in service new years eve regardless.  To meet that
schedule, they neglected a few minor tests such as HI-Potting it which
would have uncovered the Phase C-to-ground short.  Power was applied
at 11:35 and the Lights Went Out in Georgia... and Tn and a few other
places!

Two units at Sequoyah tripped (2,000 MWE), Vogtle  in Ga (1,100 MWE), 
several steam plants in various states that totaled probably about 5,000 MWE.  
Protective relaying rerouted power fairly rapidly probably because 
Ga Power's dispatch is so automated.  It is estimated that the only
reason the whole Southeastern grid didn't collapse was because 
Racoon Mountain Pumped Storage (about 2,000 MWE) came on-line almost
immediately plus several other unloaded hydro plants were available.

This shows how far protective systems have advanced since the great 
New York blackout but also shows how far it yet has to go.  The 
fault should have been isolated to the Sequoyah Intertie, after all.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:24:30 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Wind Energy Weekly
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <5240.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
>EUROPEAN WIND TO TOP
>BILLION-KWH MARK
>
>European wind turbines will, for the first time, exceed 1 billion
>kWh (1 TWh) in electric power output in 1992.
>
>Production within Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands alone will
>reach 1.25 billion kWh this year, as much as will be generated by
>wind in either California's Altamont or Tehachapi Pass, and more
>than twice the amount projected from turbines in the San Gorgonio
>Pass.
>
>                 INSTALLED MW
>                    Projected
>               1991  1992  1993
>---------------------------------
>Denmark         418   470   520
>Netherlands      83   116   120
>Germany          90   170   220
>United Kingdom   10    30   131
>Spain            15    45    57
>Belgium           6     6     6
>Italy             5     6    20
>Greece            5    26    26
>Portugal          2     2     2
>Sweden            8    12    12
>France            1     1     2
>Ireland                 7     8
>---------------------------------
>Total           643   890  1123
>MW Installed/yr 166   247   234
>

Would it be correct to infer that the operating capacity for Germany,
Denmark, and the Netherlands was about 20%?   Does it matter?
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: hot water
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:16:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.193301.7343@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <BzqvCI.KL2@world.std.com> moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>>
>>Yes.  I've been meaning to look into this to increase the efficiency of
>>by heating system by such a damper (hopefully with an interlock)
>
>I've seen 'dampers' for greenhouses that automatically open the
>vents in the roof when the room gets warm enough/too-much.  
>They were 'passive' in that they used some kind of bimetalic (or
>similar) system that took no power other than heat to operate.
>
>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.

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
From: duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:40:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Avg. US home energy bill
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

>/ hpfcso:sci.energy / katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Chris Katopis) /  3:12 pm  Jan  6, 1993 /
>Can anyone tell me what the "average" cost of the US's 	
>homeowner/apt renter energy bill - elect, gas, oil is??	
>
>plus, what is the avg number of TV's, lightbulbs etc in each	
>dwelling unit???

In some info. that I got with my last power bill, it was reported that
the average yearly power bill for a household was $899 (NOTE:  for the
area serviced by the Public Service Co. of Denver, CO).  This was gas
and electricity combined, with the breakdown being pretty close to 50/50.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Originator: a722756@roper.mc.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments / Attleboro Mass / USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:25:16 GMT


I have been reading this thread with some interest.  I  have seen only once, a
mention of what appears to be san overwhelmingly obvious trueism:
 
    between fossile fuels and nuclear power only nuclear power is CO2 free

I guess one  can argue that not using power is also CO2 free in some sense, but
the reality is that even under the most optimistics assumtions on efficiency, new
 power capacity will be required:  do we really want to install fossile fuel
plants under conditions in which CO2 is deemed to instigate global warming.

A  more interesting point is that the manmade CO2 emmisions are less than 10% of
the world wide CO2 cycled during a typical year.  Do we know enough about the CO2
cyles in nature to be highly assured that controlling the manmade emmisions will
change the overall balance of CO2 in the atmosphere?  I am not against reducing
CO2, it seems a prudent thing to do in any event, but do we know that its
critical?
-- 

Regards.
 
Don Rolph  a722756@pan.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:15:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.045540.14090@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>According to the California Public Utilities Commission, 
>a little over 1% of California's electricity is produced by wind turbines.
>These systems remained profitable even after the tax subsidy went away.
>Owners report downtimes had been overestimated by 10 times or more: wind
>machines have proven more reliable than their proponents dared to hope.
>The economic cost of wind-generated electricity in California is under
>10 cents/kW-hour.  The part of the cost of nuclear electricity in
>California that we currently pay is about 11.5 cents.  Not to mention the
>costs our children and their children will continue to pay.
>
>Do you think nuclear plants would be profitable without the Price-Anderson
>insurance subsidy?  Without the waste disposal avoidance subsidy?
>Without the rate-payer cost overrun subsidy?
>I question the motivations of those who continue to claim, despite the data
>to the contrary, that nuclear electicity makes economic sense.

Comparing an energy source that is weather-dependent for small additions to 
the grid with a nuclear plant that will churn out 1000+ MW all day and all
night?
Why not convert the transportation industry from 18 wheelers to bicycles?

Tino 
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Chris Katopis)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Avg. US home energy bill
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:12:45 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Can anyone tell me what the "average" cost of the US's 	
homeowner/apt renter energy bill - elect, gas, oil is??	

plus, what is the avg number of TV's, lightbulbs etc in each	
dwelling unit???
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Changes
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:48:07 GMT

This is getting really silly, and I sent an extensive reply via email,
but I wanted to defend a few points publicly.


hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie) writes:
>Which clearly implies, whether you like it or not,

Dear Peter, you are in no way qualified to be the sole arbiter of what I
may or may not imply with any statement. If you wish to read things into
what I write, I can't stop that. But if I say there was no such implication,
then you must accept that.


>and given that you admit you have no idea of the
>plant's condition before or after the storm,

Which, of course, is not what you asked for nor what I said. You asked for
"the precise DAMAGE to the containment buildings", not some "idea of the
plant's condition before or after the storm". There is a difference. I do
have an idea of the plant's condition before and after the storm. Do you?


Please do not state your that interpretations of what I write are the
same as my thoughts and intentions when I wrote it. They are not.


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: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: True Costs of French
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:33:00 GMT
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193

TI>Currently, 75% of the electricity generation in France is nuclear with 56
TI>active reactors.

TI>In 1991, France (or EdF, the company that runs the show) EXPORTED 53.4 TWh
TI>of electricity, a 17% gain from 1990, for a turnover of 12 billion francs.
TI>Because of this, EdF was the seventh largest French exporter in 1990, and
TI>has probably moved up even higher. Their three largest consumers were the
TI>UK, Italy, and Switzerland. [Tino's note: Italy is paying through the nose
TI>for shutting down its plants] Germany has also begun to import large
TI>amounts of electricity (5.5 TWh in 1991).

TI>Between 1992 and 1998, 7 more plants are to be started up. Their goal is at
TI>least one reactor a year, to increase their energy independence. Their
TI>substitution of nuclear power for oil is now fully complete.

Gee!, with all that surplus power, why are they building a large wind
farm at Dunkirk?

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
                                             
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
From: daryl@bovill.auspex.com (Daryl Starr)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:42:59 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems

In article <7043@otc.otca.oz>, elson@otc.otca.oz.au (Elson Markwick) writes:
|> The other problem (about the gyro effects of a flywheel) could be negated by
|> mounting a single wheel with a vertical axis of rotation (ie the wheel spins in 
|> the horizontal plane).  Then you only get a gyro effect when you attempt to
|> change the pitch of the vehicle.  The only major changes in vehicle pitch would
|> be up or down hills, and I'm sure flexible mounts could easily take care of that.

Too many continue to ignore the gyroscopic effect of the flywheel. I agree that
using a vertical axis of rotation would minimize problems experienced but would
not eliminate them completely. But, let's get on with the next problem which
is angular inertia of the flywheel. Imagine attempting to accelerate a vehicle
using the kinetic engergy of the flywheel. This means changing the speed of the
flywheel to transfer kinetic energy to forward motion of the vehicle. The only
problem is that the inertia of the flywheel attempts to spin the car on a
vertical axis as well. This might prove manageable under ideal driving conditions
such as a straight and flat road but imagine the effect coupled with the force
a vehicle normally encounters when on a banked roadway or when cornering.
What happens on a flat and straight roadway that is covered with snow or ice
when attempting to accelerate. Think about it.

Maybe the solution is two flywheels counter rotating such that the angular
inertial effects cancel?

Daryl
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: hot water
Date: 24 Dec 92 19:33:01 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <BzqvCI.KL2@world.std.com> moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:
>
>>The problem with oil and gas water heaters is the flue.
...
>> Much heat goes up
>>the flue.

>>Real inefficiency occurs when the heater reaches temperature and shuts
>>off, leaving the heat from the pilot light and the water, back through
>>the low thermal resistance, to pass up the flue by convection. The
>>less hot water you use, the less efficient the system. Some sort of
>>electric pilot light and automatic, insulated damper in the flue are
>>needed to stop this loss.
>
>Yes.  I've been meaning to look into this to increase the efficiency of
>by heating system by such a damper (hopefully with an interlock)

I've seen 'dampers' for greenhouses that automatically open the
vents in the roof when the room gets warm enough/too-much.  
They were 'passive' in that they used some kind of bimetalic (or
similar) system that took no power other than heat to operate.

Could not a similar system (with an 'overheat shutoff interlock' on
the burner!) be put on water heaters?  

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: CF bulbs, Real Goods and Re: wind powered generators
Date: 24 Dec 92 20:06:04 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <1466300118@igc.apc.org> Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>lewc@oakhill.sps.mot.com writes:
>
> > I don't know if i'm in the right news forum but here goes:
> > 
> > Does anyone know of commercially viable wind-powered generators.
> > i.e. I need firms and contacts. Tx.
>
>
>Two manufacturers of good, durable small wind turbines are Bergey
>Windpower and Southwest Wind Power.
>
>Equipment from both, plus a wide range of other alternative energy
>equipment for homeowners, is available from:
>
>Real Goods Trading Corp.
>966 Mazzoni Street
>Ukiah, CA 95482
>
>Their _1991 Alternative Energy Sourcebook_ costs $10 and can be ordered

I think the 1992 book is more expensive ... $16 comes to mind, but I
can't say for sure ...

>by calling (800) 762-7325 (with a credit card #) between the hours of
>7 am and 7 pm Pacific Time Monday-Saturday.
>
>Highly recommended.  These guys have been around for a while and know
>what they are doing.

While I like buying strange stuff from Real Goods, and am a satisfied
customer, be warned: They Are EXPENSIVE!!!

The same Lights of America 18W Quad Tube compact fluorescent that I
can get for $4.95 at my local Home Depot (includeing PG&E rebate)
they wanted somthing like $9 for!!  (including rebate) and called it
a real bargain since it was down from their 'usual' $25 !!!  (The
non-rebate price at OSH, Home Depot, et.al. was about $16 ...)

If you can find it anywhere else, it will be cheaper than Real Goods.
If you can't find it anywhere else, it will be a godsend that Real Goods
has it...

(I ordered this nifty CF from them.  It has a remote balast and
a screw in adapter.  The adapter just takes an Edison socket and
makes it a PL socket.  The remote balast has a plug and regular
110v lamp cord socket.  The QUAD 13 and QUAD 9 let me convert some
fixtures that were just not otherwise convertable....  (the overall
length of bulb& adapter was about 5 inches...)  Cost was on the
order of $30 EACH, though.  (For the adapter, balast, and bulb).

They do sell the adapter alone, for $5.  I'm working on chopping
up some LOA $4.99 lights to get the electronic ballast out to 
'roll my own' compact systems with electronic instant start ...

>If you are looking for information on larger scale turbines, contact the
>American Wind Energy Association at (202) 408-8988, e-mail awea@mcimail.com.
>*******************************************************************

Also, there are other vendors of small scale turbines.  Check out the
yellowpages and boat dealers.  Sailboats sometimes have small wind
turbines. 

-- 

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
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:00:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.054943.4227@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

 > I calculate that the maximum energy density (ED_max) that can be 
 > stored in a spinning loop of some fiber without breaking it is 
 >
 > ED_max = S_max/(2 rho)
 >
 > where S_max is the breaking point stress (max force per unit 
 > cross sectional area) the fiber can withstand, and rho is the 
 > material density (kg/m^3).

This assumes the centripetal force on the spinning loop is carried by
the loop itself.  You can get a higher bound if the loop is externally
confined.  However, those external forces then have to be carried in
some material, so the overall energy density of the system is still
limited.

Such an externally confined flywheel is not terribly interesting for
vehicles, but it might be of interest for stationary power storage.
This is because high strength materials are expensive.  You'd rather
carry the load in bedrock instead of kevlar.

In the 1980s John Hull and coworkers at Argonne looked at magnetically
levitated rings for energy storage.  The last design I saw out of them
levitated a ferromagnetic ring using a passively stable scheme for
attractive maglev (stable when the ring was spinning, that is).  The
scheme had the levitation magnets to the inside of the ring, so that
in the event of failure the ring travels out into a dump zone (where
a large amount of material would absorb its energy).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:41:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.031549.21866@freenet.carleton.ca>, aa139@Freenet.carleton.ca (Mike Lynch) writes:
> A word on costs:

[Details of actual costs of several plants in various areas started at various
times]

Very informative, thank you.

I have two questions:

1) were the reports in constant dollars?  I assume they were, since none of
   the increase was attributed to inflation.  What year's dollar was used?
   (If the report stated this).

2) Not addressable from the report, but open for discussion - what factors
   could lead to an $1800/kwe increase in real cost, especially when the
   entire cost was originally $700/kwe?  Do these factor uniquely affect
   nuclear construction or power construction in general?  I imagine land
   must be pretty uniform in cost regardless of what kind of plant is built,
   and some types require more land than nuclear (coal, for example, which
   needs extensive lands for rail handling, and the big heap in the coal
   yard).  I could imagine labor being nuclear specific, since regulations
   may require very highly-trained skilled specialists for construction.
   The materials used aren't much different from any other plant - mostly
   concrete and steel.  And the construction equipment is pretty much the
   same as well.  Does anyone know how much cost of construction for a coal
   plant increased over the same time period?  Is it similar to nuclear
   construction?  I understand the coal, etc. will be cheaper per kwe to
   build, mainly due to the cost of the reactor and control room, but
   I would have expected all these things to scale uniformly, such that
   the same percent increase in cost to construct nuclear would be present
   in cost to construct coal (or whatever).


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: cargibbs@atlas.cs.upei.ca (Rick Gibbs)
Subject: Solar Ovens
Organization: University of Prince Edward Island
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:05:59 GMT

I am looking for information about recent research into effecient Solar
Ovens for use in Third World countries. Of particular interest is proper
materials, and shape of the parabola.

Any help will be GREATLY appreciated.

Rick Gibbs
cargibbs@atlas.cs.upei.ca

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: hot water
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 21:27:40 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

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.

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu