HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:45:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.220133.1959@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>Obviously we are not talking about wishful thinking, but methods that
>are tried and proven successsful in one of the largest urban areas in
>the U.S.

Yes, and it's an area that now has a net out migration of population for
the first time in it's history, a net decline in jobs, and the lowest
economic growth of any region in the US. Related?

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:10:59 GMT

hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie,4805) writes:
>From article <C057yB.6Dw@encore.com>, by wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll):
>> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>> 
>>>No comparison.  Containment structures are designed to withstand the strongest
>>>tornadoes - a mere typhoon would simply give the plant a nice bath.
>>>									Just
>>>look at some of the stuff our last big hurricane did in Florida.  That's
>>>exactly what a typhoon does.
>> 
>> You mean, like knocking the Turkey Point nuclear plant offline for several
>> weeks? That's one hell of a bath!

>If you had read the news correctly you would know that the hurricane did not
>damage the nuclear power plant at all. It was taken off line as a precaution
>during the storm. The damage was done to a nearby coal-fired plant (one of the
>stacks was damaged?). After being taken off-line, the Turkey Point plant could
>not get permission to start up again for some time because of concerns about
>the ability to evacuate the nearby population if an emergency occurred at the
>plant (i.e. the existing emergency evacuation plans would have been difficult
>to carry out with the debris from the storm impeding people's ability to get
>out of the area).

I did read the news correctly, thank you. The plant was offline while emergency
systems damaged in the storm were repaired. To me, that means the storm
knocked the plant offline. In even plainer language, the only reason the
plant was not operational was because of damage incurred in the storm.

If you had read the news correctly, you would know that:

The plant was brought to a state of "hot shutdown" prior to the storm's
arrival. This is evidently SOP for the situation. The plan was to bring it
back up as soon as the storm passed.

The coal-fired plant was not nearby, it was on-site. The coal and nuclear
facilities share the same patch of earth.

The evacuation concerns centered on the inoperative alarm sirens, which had
died early in the night. It wasn't a matter of evacuating people through
the debris, it was a matter of letting them know they needed to evacuate.

And even though it survived the storm relatively intact, I still think was
and is incredibly stupid to put a facility like that on the oceanfront in
a high-risk hurricane area. If you saw the damage the storm did to the
"hurricane-proof" buildings at Homestead AFB, you would realize that FPL
was VERY lucky.


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

"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
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 6 Jan 1993 02:09:40 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: herald.usask.ca
Originator: hardie@herald.usask.ca

=hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie,4805) writes:
==From article <C057yB.6Dw@encore.com>, by wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll):
== You mean, like knocking the Turkey Point nuclear plant offline for several
== weeks? That's one hell of a bath!
=
==If you had read the news correctly you would know that the hurricane did not
==damage the nuclear power plant at all. It was taken off line as a precaution
==during the storm. The damage was done to a nearby coal-fired plant (one of the
==stacks was damaged?).
==etc.
=
=I did read the news correctly, thank you. The plant was offline while emergency
=systems damaged in the storm were repaired. To me, that means the storm
=knocked the plant offline. In even plainer language, the only reason the
=plant was not operational was because of damage incurred in the storm.
=
=If you had read the news correctly, you would know that:
=
=The plant was brought to a state of "hot shutdown" prior to the storm's
=arrival. This is evidently SOP for the situation. The plan was to bring it
=back up as soon as the storm passed.

You're contradicting yourself. You say the plant was shutdown as part of SOP
BEFORE the storm arrived. Therefore the storm could not possibly have
knocked it offline - it was already down.

=
=The coal-fired plant was not nearby, it was on-site. The coal and nuclear
=facilities share the same patch of earth.

Huh? It's on-site and therefore it is not nearby? I must be missing a
crucial semantic difference here.

=
=The evacuation concerns centered on the inoperative alarm sirens, which had
=died early in the night. It wasn't a matter of evacuating people through
=the debris, it was a matter of letting them know they needed to evacuate.
=

So the "emergency systems" that were damaged were the sirens. The nuclear
plant itself was undamaged. 

=And even though it survived the storm relatively intact, I still think was
=and is incredibly stupid to put a facility like that on the oceanfront in
=a high-risk hurricane area.

If the only damage was to the sirens and you represent this by saying that
the plant survived "relatively intact", it's no wonder you have problems
with "nearby" and "on-site".


=If you saw the damage the storm did to the
="hurricane-proof" buildings at Homestead AFB, you would realize that FPL
=was VERY lucky.

Or well designed.


Pete hardie@herald.usask.ca
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:26:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.151120.23545@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@carla.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:
> In article <51775@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> >Oh, well that is a little fast (rim velocity of 3060 kph) - maybe the
> >tunnel could be under a little vacuum so that velocity is below sound
> >speed.
> 
>   What good will that do?  The speed of sound in air is proportional
> to its temperature, not its pressure.  Or did you mean that you would
> pump it down to a hard enough vacuum that the shock waves would
> cease to be significant?

Right.  I mixed concepts.  I wanted to reduce the force on the rotor and
quantified it as speed of sound incorrectly.  I normally deal with solids
where sound speed is pressure dependent.  This does point out that a significant
vacuum will need to be maintained, because the force will be from shockwaves
at any pressure, not just viscous forces that a subsonic rotor experiences.
Then this is no longer a mere trench in the ground, but a large vacuum vessel.
And you lose both the vacuum vessel and the rotor on rotor failure.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: daryl@bovill.auspex.com (Daryl Starr)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:33:08 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems

In article <1993Jan6.000347.26915@kpc.com>, kevinc@solman.kpc.com (Kevin Cameron) writes:
|> Reality check time.  Spin-up and spin-down torque is not a problem.  The
|> torque introduced on the flywheel is easily calculated:
|> T = K*P/R, where T is torque, P is power, R is the rotational
|> speed, and K is a fudge factor to get the units right.
|> For T measured in foot-pounds, P measured in horsepower, and R measured in RPM,
|> K is 5250.
|> 
|> So, let's say we have a car which is withdrawing 100 horsepower from the
|> flywheel.  With conversion losses, that might produce 50 horsepower to the
|> wheels.  Also, let's say the speed of the flywheel is 20,000 RPM.  This
|> means that the torque on the flywheel is 5250*100/20,000 = 26.25 foot-pounds.
|> 
|> By comparison, my old Buick engine produced 425 peak foot-pounds of torque.
|> It didn't seem to be much of a problem.  I could, however, get it rocking
|> back and forth pretty good while parked and rhythmically punching the throttle.
|> 
|> What I would be more concerned with would be the effect of a flywheel failure.
|> Imagine that we can build a sheild strong enough to fully contain the fragments.
|> I don't have time to calculate it but it seems that the resulting transfer
|> of angular momentum into the car in a very short period of time may be enough
|> to flip it!  Maybe several times.  This wouldn't be pretty.  Especially if
|> the car is moving.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Kevin Cameron
|> 
|> "Those who will trade essential liberty for promise of security will
|>  have neither" - Benjamin Franklin
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 07 Jan 93 03:55 PST
Subject: Re: Wind Energy Weekly
Nf-ID: #R:5239.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com:505847810:cdp:1466300149:000:1274
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Jan  7 03:55:00 1993


stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:

 > In article <5240.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com
 > (Howard Smith) writes:
 > > European wind turbines will, for the first time, exceed 1 billion
 > > kWh (1 TWh) in electric power output in 1992.
 > > 
 > > Worldwide wind generation will likely reach 4.3 billion kWh in
 > > 1992. California, which due to poor winds is not expected to
 > > produce more than the 2.7 billion kWh recorded last year, will
 > > account for about 67% of total world production.
 > 
 > Shows the sorry state of world-wide wind development, since the world total
 > does not approach the output of a single nuke over 1 year.

(1) What size nukes are we talking about here, or what do you mean by
"does not approach"?  A 1,000-MW nuke should produce about 6 billion
kWh/year.

(2) If your comment is meant as a criticism of wind, it doesn't seem well
taken.  Nuclear power in the U.S., after 8 years of deployment, produced
"only" 3.7 billion kWh (1965).  All emerging technologies must start
someplace, mustn't they?

(3) At the same time, you're right, this is pretty sorry, considering
wind's potential to supply clean electric power.  A good criticism of U.S.
and world energy policymakers, rather than of wind energy.

Tom
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Cli
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:26:16 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <1993Jan12.154421.14928@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.222018.28813@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>>Its still not a trivial amount.  We aren't just talking about North
>>Dakota here.  It may not be enough to supply the eastern seaboard, but
>>it could make a big dent in consumption in the upper midwest, which is
>>close enough to overcome transmission problems.
>
>i.e., if you don't care about environmental impacts, wildlife, etc.
>
>


Windmills kill birds.

In this country, we have an installed base that produces power comparable to
one nuke, and collectively they kill a few dozen birds per year, usually
endangered raptors that are too busy tracking lunch with their excellent but
specialized eyes to notice a blade coming at them at an unusual angle.

Source?  Nothing specific, but there were articles in the New York Times
science section a year or two ago.



Can anybody imagine the bruhaha that would result if each nuke killed a few
dozen birds a year, mostly large raptors, as part of their normal method of
operation?  Perhaps we should stop building windmills until a bladeless
windmill* is practical?

-dk

* They exist, believe-it-or-not, but depend on sprays of water and large
  electrostatic fields that would no doubt have an even heavier environmental 
  footprint
From: hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 9 Jan 1993 18:32:21 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: herald.usask.ca
Originator: hardie@herald.usask.ca

=From: wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll)

=This is getting really silly,
Correct.
=and I sent an extensive reply via email,
It hasn't arrived yet.
=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.

I have never attempted to be the sole arbiter of what *you* implied. I have
only been pointing out what I implied from your posts. You have done the
same thing with me. But you have avoided my attempts to get you to clarify
the central points. For example:

=>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",

So you did understand the question ...

=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?

and yet again you didn't answer it but change the topic and ask me another
question. You did that once before and expected me to "Be precise".
I answered your question. Precisely.

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

Obviously. And since you continue to avoid answering my questions, which
would have clarified your "thoughts and intentions", you've managed to drag
this out to the point that I have lost interest.

Pete hardie@herald.usask.ca
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries---reality check
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 03:25:56 GMT

In article <51741@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.062953.19498@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu  
(Barry Merriman) writes:
> > Arguments aside, the latest Popular Science had an article
> > on a start-up company that has designed what they contend to be a 
> > workable flywheel battery.
> 
> For a reality
> check, review the computations in this thread - especially those regarding
> minimum material strength and how it relates to maximum enrgy storage, and
> why "fluff" is hazardous at the energy levels which must be present.

I missed various parts of the thread. Anyway, I'd prefer to 
redo the calculations myself. Could someone please post the relevant 
physical parameters again:

(1) energy density of gasoline
(2) tensile strength of carbon fiber


also helpful would be:

(1.1) efficiency of converting gasoline energy to mechanical energy
in a internal combustion engine

(2.1) hypothetical efficiecny of converting flywheel energy 
to mechanical energy in electric motor set-up.

As for dangerous fluff balls: fluff ball => much of stored energy went 
into destroying the substrate material. Hopefully little of the store actually
gets released as kinetic energy of the debris.
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Energy Weekly
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:52:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: seismo.51799

In article <1466300149@igc.apc.org>, tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
> (2) If your comment is meant as a criticism of wind, it doesn't seem well
> taken.  Nuclear power in the U.S., after 8 years of deployment, produced
> "only" 3.7 billion kWh (1965).  All emerging technologies must start
> someplace, mustn't they?

Wind power is not an emerging technology.  It is one of the oldest ways
of generating electricity, predating the discovery of nuclear fission let
alone nuclear power; even predating modern steam turbine power plants.

> (3) At the same time, you're right, this is pretty sorry, considering
> wind's potential to supply clean electric power.  A good criticism of U.S.
> and world energy policymakers, rather than of wind energy.

The "sorry state" comment was meant as a multi-faceted criticism.  On one
hand, you're right - we have not taken advantage of even a small percent of
the best applications of wind power.  On another, even with a favorable
political climate, and strong investment and favorable economics, wind
is just not proving to be a very productive resource.  So while I think
it is ludicrous that we can't seem to take advantage of wind where it
has been shown to be a valuable and advantageous resource (for whatever
reason - inaction, studpidity, whatever); I think it is just as ludicrous
to try and extrapolate the known successes to some global cure-all for
energy.  My opinion is that wind should eventually provide 5-15% of the
US energy supply through a variety of large-scale and local applications
(a number I throw out based on many considerations, and which I will not
attempt to defend so feel free to ignore it).


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:57:26 GMT

In article <C0qsD6.MuB@dcs.ed.ac.uk> jh@dcs.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>you are aware of just how much evidence Greenpeace has?

You are aware of just how often they make severe errors in their press 
releases?

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 09:58:19 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

a722756@roper.mc.ti.com (W. Donald Rolph) writes:

>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 will not use the CO2/greenhouse strawman even though it would help
my case because I consider the whole issue to be at best, based on ignorance
and at worst, based on intellectual fraud.

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: abrown@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:59:13 GMT

: Obviously this is speculation, but California is notorious for leading
: in environmental regulation in the US. I'm postulating that these 
: regulations have begun to have serious economic effects in California.
: I'm aware that there are *other* factors at play, such as the aerospace
: cutbacks from declining defense expenditures, and a large non-productive
: population, but I suspect that the "greening" of California is finally 
: beginning to take it's toll on the productive sector. Businesses are
: moving out whatever the reason.
: -- 
: Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary

I moved out of the Bay Area of California because I didn't like it
there.  It was too crowded and too polluted.  I am a chip designer.
The vast majority of the chip designers here in Corvallis wouldn't
move back to the Bay Area if you paid them 50% more, for the same
reasons.  (We have talked about it.)  If lots of engineers feel this
way it drives up the cost of labor.

In other words lots of us moved out of California because it wasn't
"green" enough.  And this is not speculation.
--
  Allen C. Brown  abrown@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
    "'Moderation in all things' is for wimps."