HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebutt
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:31:05 GMT
Organization: PHILOSYS Software GmbH, Unterschleissheim, Germany

In article <13116@ntdd-1> meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.100946.6278@sinix.UUCP> egn@sinix.UUCP (Hr.Naepflein/PHILOS) writes:
>
>>So the aim must be to use high quality (and expensive) energy like
>>electrical energy only were it's absolutely necessary.
>
>I prefer to think that electrical energy is so versatile, we should try
>to adapt it to all our energy requirements.  Electricity does not have
>to be expensive.  Many ways are known of generating electricity.  Many
>approaches are "bad" for political reasons, not technical
>reasons (eg nuclear and  some mega hydro).  There are numerous
>"leading edge" technologies which can generate electricity (PV, wind,
>micro-hydro, fuel cell).  These need only be developed to become economical.
>
>Given that we would prefer to maintain a reasonable level of comfort
>and a reasonable standard of living, there is no reason why elecricity
>could not be the ideal means of delivering energy.
>

I agree, but in the meantime most of the electrical energy is generated
with "polluting" technologies. Why not avoiding a lot of this
pollution (which is directly related to the primary energy use),
by using the primary energy directly where it is more efficient.
Generating heat and cold directly is much better than first
generating electricity and than using this electricity for heat
and cold. Electric heat pumps are an exception, but you get 
the same amount of heat as with a conventional heater, but for
much more money. Saving primary energy is one way of reducing
the impact on the environment. This means fewer CO2 and fewer
pollutants.

>______________________________________________________________________
>Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Naepflein                   _--_|\       Phone: +49 8452 70099
Sedelbreite 15        A fan of  /      \      Mail:  egn%philos.uucp@unido
W-8069 Geisenfeld               \_.--._/
Germany                               v
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:38:36
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct7.005030.6473@gallant.apple.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: ems@gallant.apple.com's message of 7 Oct 92 00:50:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.005030.6473@gallant.apple.com> ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith) writes:


   In article <STEINLY.92Oct6122939@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <1992Oct5.062440.3437@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
   >   From the Oct 1 San Jose Murkey News, page 14A, dateline TOKYO (AP)

   >Fascinating choice of deletions, the Sentinel also published the AP
   >story along with the 18 worst nuclear accidents, 

   The (numbered) deletions were:  

   *** BEGIN DELETIONS POST ***

 ...
 
   *** END DELETIONS POST ***

   I deleted these two text blocks since they seemed to be material that 
   was clearly well known to folks in this group.  The photo was deleted
   since I don't have a scanner ...

   I don't see a thing about them that is 'facinating'.  In fact, I think
   they are rather dull and boring blocks of text, which is why I deleted
   them...

Yes, I believe the Sentinel story was longer - of course I've deleted
your original post now and trash pickup was yesterday... basically
the Sentinel as I remember had a 2-3 paragraph discourse on worst case
scenarios and locals being upset

   Perhaps you paper had a longer version of the AP story?  Local papers
   WILL often edit wire stories to fit the page ...  I'd be interested
   in knowing what the Murkey News editor choose to throw away...  There
   was no list of 18 accidents in my paper...

Yup, they often sit on them too until they need a filler. The 18
accidents was a separate boxed item, replaced the photo by the sound
of it. Most of the list was "steam pipe burst, nobody hurt, somebody
shut of the steam and the pipe was replaced..."

    >Chernobyl and Windscale). You are right though, this sort of article
   >is precisely why people are afraid of things nuclear.

   So what can be done about it?

 Haven't got the foggiest.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		       "standard disclaimer"  	  *
* But, oh, love is strange 					  *
* and you have to learn to take the crunchy with the smooth,      *
* I suppose 				              - B.B. 1983 *
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Car summary
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:00:39 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct16.182650.5623@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>I just don't see how you can claim that buying a car for 'niche use'
>is an economic hardship or a waste of resources.  If a person's 
>driving style fits that niche, it is no more of a hardship to buy
>a ZEV than it is to buy an IC vehicle (assuming equal prices).

Fine.  If your claim is true, then why the hell does it take a law to force
people to buy them?  Something smells fishy here.

>It isn't a waste of resources for anyone if I buy a vehicle optimized
>for my driving style.  I would argue that it is, in fact, a better
>use of resources since it IS the optimum match to my needs! 

Fine.  Go buy one.  That's no excuse for passing laws to force the sale of a
certain number of the vehicles.  Especially when the laws still allow cars from
the early 70's and before to belch as much filth into the atmosphere as they
do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:29:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.000119.23801@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) writes...
>Two small monkey wrenches in the works:  1.  Since the  
>steel core is doing the support, does thermal expansion &  
>strength of the aluminum matter?.  (I think steel cores are  
>used in Cu cables for the same reason:  Electrical grade Cu  
>is not very strong.)

I don't know the details, but due to the existance of HV powerlines,
the power companies apparently have solved this.

>2. Due to skin effect isn't about 90% of the current being  
>carried in the outer quarter inch of the cable?  Is this  
>why you frequently see multiple conductors with spacers  
>dangling from each insulator?

Not a problem at 60Hz.  A total non-problem at DC which I believe the original
note was about.

-Mike
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: keelings@wl.aecl.ca
Subject: Re: COOL HEADS...   HOT HEADS
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:20:30 GMT

  Date sent:  8-OCT-1992 16:16:41 
  >In a previous article, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) wrote:
  >>In article <1ar1k8INNfso@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> davidt@ecst.csuchico.edu (David Taylor) writes:
  >>>
  >>>the process of completing my senior project.  This project is to design
  >>>build and test a thermoelectrically cooled motorcycle helmet--a motor
  >>>
  >>>To build an accurate model of the system, I need to know the rate of heat
  >>>leaving a person's head.  My team has spoken to the nursing and physiology
  >> 
  >>Hmmm. You could stick your head in a bucket of water and measure the
  >>temperature rise in the water.

	Hmmm... Is this a suggestion that Mr. Taylor might wish to "Go
Soak His Head"? If so, then it might be best to re-direct this
discussion to alt.flame.   ;-)

  >>Gary

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  keelings@wl.aecl.ca  AECL - Whiteshell Labs, Pinawa, MB., Canada R0E 1L0  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:01:19 GMT

Gary Coffman writes
> Back to the wire tables. Ohms per CM per 1000 feet,  
copper 10,570,
> aluminum 16,700. Pounds per CM per 1000 feet, copper  
0.003, aluminum
> ..0009. So it's 1.58 times as resistive, and 3.33 times  
lighter. Thus
> aluminum cable needs to be 2.011 inches diameter per 900  
MW in the example
> above, and would weigh 67.27 million pounds. But the  
cable would have
> 1/3 the tensile strength and twice the coefficient of  
linear expansion.
> That requires more transmission towers due to shorter  
spans and more
> sag allowance.  I also found out that industry practice  
is to allow
> only a 2% voltage drop instead of the 10% I used in my  
calculations.
> 

Two small monkey wrenches in the works:  1.  Since the  
steel core is doing the support, does thermal expansion &  
strength of the aluminum matter?.  (I think steel cores are  
used in Cu cables for the same reason:  Electrical grade Cu  
is not very strong.)

2. Due to skin effect isn't about 90% of the current being  
carried in the outer quarter inch of the cable?  Is this  
why you frequently see multiple conductors with spacers  
dangling from each insulator?

A local spur line (230 KV I think) cost about a  
megabuck/mile.  This included purchase of right of way.  
(Farm & ranch land ~ $400/acre) None of the terrain  
required exotic measures to erect towers.  It did cross the  
Saskatchewan river twice, but those crossings don't appear  
to be abnormally long.
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Economist article on car battery and flywheel technology.
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:47:20 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <ETHANB.92Oct13110800@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu> ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:
>
>								In each
>battery, two flywheels spin in opposite directions to counteract
>gyroscopic forces.

I've always wondered about this assertion.

Although the housing as a whole will not exert any torque, each flywheel will
exert major force on its own bearing.  Can a delicate magnetic bearing twist
its own wheel?

-dk
Newsgroups: sci.energy,misc.rural,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: DSM for Ontario Hydro (was Re: Radioactivity and Superstition...)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:38:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.172753.9007@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>The EPRI report provides figures in supplied energy ($/KWh), not capacity.
>For example, they say that efficiency retrofits in industrial motor
>drives (the category with the largest potential savings) could reclaim
>capacity at $.025/kwh.

Ontario Hydro's planned case was looking at CDN$.037/kWh for efficiency 
improvements.  I like to compare installed (and avoided) capacity, since this
directly measures the cost of responding to demand.  Also, options like like
load shifting will tend to save megawatts (peak), but save nothing in energy.
When one quotes a figure that characterizes an entire demand strategy,   
therefore, it is best to talk about capacity.

>Can Ontario Hydro supply nuclear or fossil
>energy at that rate? 

The only thing that comes close is Candu nuclear power at 80% cap. factor, which
is estimated to run at CDN$.031/kWh in Ontario Hydro's plan.

>Of course, I don't even know what their specific DSM policies are.
>The phone number provided is not connected for me in Colorado.  Do
>you have a regular phone number or an address?

Ontario Hydro, 700 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario, 416-592-5111


-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: davros@acme.gen.nz (Steven Groom)
Subject: Intelligent Discussions Anyone?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 12:00:17 GMT
Organization: ACME BBS - Public Access Usenet, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Reply-To: davros@acme.gen.nz (Steven Groom)

The  existence  of alien life forms has been on the minds of man  for  many 
years  now.   Is this all a conspiracy?  or is there actually life which is 
trying to make subtle/direct observations of mankind?

There  is  a common belief among UFO researchers that the US  military  has
indeed collected crashed alien craft and beings (dead).  As most of this is
observation/hearsay,  by a select few people,  I  do not think that we  can
regard  it  seriously.   If an advanced lifeform is capable  of  travelling
millions  of  kilometers through space then why would they crash?  That  is
like  saying  that I develop a sophisticated computer that forgets  how  to
add.

Other  claims  about  mysterious  alloys are not true  whatsoever,   as  no
spectro-analysis  was  done on the materials so how can looking  at  it  or
picking  it  up  tell you that it is not made from elements  found  on  the
periodic table!

BTW that would make it either:

A) lighter that hydrogen, and probably a gas

B) heavier than the heaviest known element,  not the sort of thing you want
to build a spacecraft out of

C)  Somewhere in the middle,  which has not been seen  not  even a tiny bit
with all the thousands of nuclei splitting, and other  forms  of  nuclear
investigation in the last 20+ years 

Many  like to think in terms of probability or chance of life  evolving  on
other worlds,  in other forms. This would have to be the most likely of all
the  theories.    Carl Sagan,  Iaasac Asimov and others  have  put  forward
calculations for life on other worlds,  but all such theories have to  have
very large assumptions,  just to get a figure which varies with many orders
of magnitude depending on which assumption you adjust.

An important issue on this topic is :-

Is life an abundant occurance or a freak of nature?

Would  anyone  like  to add/subtract information, stated in  a  logical and
methodical  way  to  try and build up a picture of what the  case  may  be?
Please, no up in the air stuff about "The Aliens" and hearsay, unless there
is clear real (and no, multiplying it by i will not help) evidence for it.

Steve.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: SOLAR efficiency
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:20:23 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct5.190509.13588@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.155036.11517@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> or the IR drop becomes really excessive. Can that reasonably be done with 
>> aluminum, or even copper? 
>...
>> would be a cable of 2.48 million CM, or about 1.6 inches diameter.
>> Well what do you know, you could do it after all if you installed
>> roughly 224 million pounds of copper line per 900 MW you wished to
>> transfer. What's copper going for per pound these days?
>
>
>High voltage lines are made of aluminum.  It is more conductive,
>per *pound*, than copper.  Cheaper too.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Back to the wire tables. Ohms per CM per 1000 feet, copper 10,570,
aluminum 16,700. Pounds per CM per 1000 feet, copper 0.003, aluminum
.0009. So it's 1.58 times as resistive, and 3.33 times lighter. Thus
aluminum cable needs to be 2.011 inches diameter per 900 MW in the example
above, and would weigh 67.27 million pounds. But the cable would have
1/3 the tensile strength and twice the coefficient of linear expansion.
That requires more transmission towers due to shorter spans and more
sag allowance.  I also found out that industry practice is to allow
only a 2% voltage drop instead of the 10% I used in my calculations.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4914 misc.rural:2240
From: johnm@ksr.com (John Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,misc.rural
Subject: Info wanted on low-head hydro turbines
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:53:13 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.

A friend of mine in central Massachusetts has a possible situation for
a small hydro turbine.  He has a 19th century tombstone-cutting mill
on his property.  The water wheel is long gone, and some yahoo filled
in the whole building side of the race with concrete 30 years ago or
so, so restoring the wheel's out, but the undershot race is in pretty
good shape.  In addition he's an architect, owns his own backhoe, etc.
I did a very rough calculation (didn't even have an envelope at the
time...) and concluded he might have 2-3 KW average and maybe 20 KW
peak-season potential for power generation, but baby hydro is not my
field or his.  I'm looking for clues to

(1) manufacturers or dealers of small generator sets and 

(2) the current regulatory status of low-head hydro -- back in the
Carter days, utilities were more-or-less coerced to buy back power
from small producers; is that still so?

(3) anyone with experience in this area in the Northeast.

E-mail would be preferred -- I do read these groups, but not as
regularly as I would like.

--
John H. Martin, johnm@ksr.com, ksr!johnm@uunet.uu.net  <The Usual Disclaimer>
    The most wonderful things are brought about in many instances by
  means the most absurd and ridiculous, in the most ridiculous modes, 
  and apparently by the most contemptible instruments. -- Edmund Burke
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: DC->AC
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:40:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Oct13.214044.24438
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct13.150121.24115@sol.UVic.CA> aschoorl@engr.UVic.CA writes:

> I live on Vancouver Island, and my neighbour states that the power
> coming to the island is DC.  Somehow they convert it back to AC, but
> no-one I know knows how.  Could I get some help on this?

You might want to check out "Power Electronics -- A Technology Review",
Proc. of the IEEE, August 1992, Vol. 80, No. 8, pages 1303-1334.

This article reviews various kinds of power semiconductor devices
and circuits using them, for many purposes besides DC->AC conversion.

I was impressed with the statement that diamond semiconductor devices
should be able to handle 1,000,000 times more power than silicon.  I
expect these will make various kinds of power electronics cheaper,
which could help such things as SMES, battery storage, wind turbines
and PV systems, as well as reduce the cost of high voltage DC
transmission.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kjb@cs.brown.edu (Ken Basye)
Subject: Re: Electric Car summary
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:09:23 GMT


Carl Lydick writes:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>I just don't see how you can claim that buying a car for 'niche use'
>>is an economic hardship or a waste of resources.  
>
>Fine.  If your claim is true, then why the hell does it take a law to force
>people to buy them?  Something smells fishy here.
>
>>It isn't a waste of resources for anyone if I buy a vehicle optimized
>>for my driving style.  I would argue that it is, in fact, a better
>>use of resources since it IS the optimum match to my needs! 
>
>Fine.  Go buy one.  That's no excuse for passing laws to force the
>sale of a certain number of the vehicles.  Especially when the laws
>still allow cars from the early 70's and before to belch as much filth
>into the atmosphere as they do.

Could someone clear up the question about what CA's ZEV law requires
and how this requirement will be enforced?  

Carl's post seems to point to requiring purchase, which I find
extremely unlikely given that the required number of ZEV's is fairly
small.  There would have to be some sort of lottery to see who would
be forced to buy a ZEV or some other equally ridiculous mechanism.  Of
course, the state itself no doubt buys large numbers of cars, and to
the extent that this is used to reach the limit, all Californians are
paying for it (but see below for mitigating factors).

On the other hand, Carl's post also mentions forcing sales, which is
easy to do at some low level with any company that wants to sell other
products (like ic cars) in the state as well.  Assuming they don't
want to lose a huge market, they will be forced to lower the prices of
ZEV's until enough are sold.  Of course, they aren't going to just eat
the loss from this (assuming that the required price is lower than
what they would charge without coercion; this is not clear).  Instead,
they will raise the prices of ic cars to make up for it.  To the
extent that this is limited to cars sold in CA, they made their bed
and will lie in it.  To the extent that prices are raised outside the
state, they are getting cheaper ZEV's at other's expense, which seems
strategically sound to me.  I could imagine that there was an
interstate trade issue here, although I suspect that it is not very
different from CA's higher emissions standards, so perhaps not (bonus
question: did non-californians pay for that, too?).

So what's the scoop?

Internet/CSnet  kjb@cs.brown.edu     U.S. MAIL  Ken Basye
UUCP            uunet!brunix!kjb                Dept. of Math and CS
                                                Clark University
                                                950 Main St.
                                                Worcester, MA  01610
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:52 PDT
Subject: Re: Economics of Solar/Wind
Nf-ID: #R:Bw157D.4or@inews.intel.com:707333307:cdp:1466300091:000:696
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Oct 13 03:52:00 1992


<responding to Michael Brodesky>

>        Another Newbie question. I was wondering if the return on solar
>and wind power generators covers the inital set up and operating costs?

Without more information about the current cost of power at the site,
which can range from a few cents to, say, $1.50 per kWh (where diesel
fuel must be transported), this is impossible to answer.  (It would
also help to know the site's characteristics to determine difficulty
or ease of installation).

Wind energy costs 6-9 cents/kWh at present, PV power perhaps 25-35
cents/kWh.  Both are viable without subsidies and without consideration
of environmental costs at some locations and in some applications.

Tom

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment