HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Why not 120 VDC ?  Why invert?
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:45:43 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1k68g7INN2ei@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <C1IpIq.DFF@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>>>If you use a 12 volt system you can start out with one set of batteries
>=>and add capacity in parallel.  If you are on 120 volts dc you have 10
>=>times the number of cells.  The initial cost for a 120 volt system will be
>=>much higher. 
>=
>=In addition, there will be ten times the number of cells in series.
>
>But the same total number of cells in your storage system.

Yep.  But, you can get away with mixing different aged banks in
parallel.  It's not the best for a system, but it isn't too
detrimental.  Replacing one cell in a series system *can* be
detrimental and can lead to reverse charging and increased sulfation
if lead acid cells.  It's best that all cells in a series system be
the same type, capacity and age.  It's not absolutley ruinous to
replace one cell (or one battery if using 6 or 12volt batteries to
make up the 120 volt battery, hmm, a battery of batteries?) in a
120volt battery, but it is more so than replacing once battery in a 10
12volt battery system.

>=Any one cell failure can ruin a bank.
>
>The same is true if the cells are connected in parallel:  One shorted cell can
>load the rest enough to damage them.

I wasn't talking about a shorted cell.  In a bank of 60 cells
connected in series a shorted cell would hardly be noticed.  The
charge/discharge voltage fluctuation is much higher than that (like
around 10 volts).  In a bank of 60 series-parallel cells working at 12
volts it could blow up the cell (more likely it wouldn't happen
because most shorts would get burned away before they became serious).
But shorted cells in a lead acid bank for that type of application
rarely happen unless you drop your wrench on them (shame on you! why
didn't you insulate all exposed leads!).  On that I speak from
experience. 
With lead acid banks in stand by or home use configuration the most
common failure mode is sulfation.  I generally try to avoid this by
dropping the acid content on the cells to about 1.2 sp. grav. fully
charged.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Roads and Taxes (was Re: NEWS: True Costs of )
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:12:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.120241.7316@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> Only in the liberal welfare state Northeast. Down here in Georgia
> we have both the lowest taxes *and* the best roads. That's because
> we don't let the Legislature get their sticky fingers on the gas
> tax money. It's mandated by law to go *directly* to the State DOT
> which in our state is essentially a totally autonomous body that
> doesn't answer to the Legislature. They are a professional group
> of highway engineers, not politicians.

Well, I applaud the fact that you keep that tax money from the politicos,
but that is only a small contribution to the condition of your roads.
The main advantage you have over the NE is the lack of snow and ice.
It is no small coincidence that the states with the worst road conditions
are those along the freeze/thaw line - despite the fact that at least
one (PA) is reliably conservative.

BTW - you now have given me an example where directed taxes work to
offer to all those who argue that my suggestion of a large, directed
federal gas tax couldn't work.  I'll just say "Why not ask Gary in Georgia?"
Thanks.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7219 talk.environment:5718
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Distributed Power
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:28:29 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1993Jan20.185622.5446@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan20.185622.5446@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com
(Dean Alaska) writes:

> I will certainly admit that there are more technological
> hurdles for distributed renewable than centralized and I
> imagine that early renewable will be centralized.

=\= Based on what we've seen so far, I predict the opposite.
Most renewable efforts thus far have been community- and
individual-level.  Perceptive blocks seem to inhibit large-
scale (e.g. multi-community)  commitment.

> . . . The same is true of distributed alternative energy
> systems.  One system has little impact, but hundreds of
> millions are a different story.

=/= There are qualitative considerations that ameliorate
a good part of that quantitative concern.  And there's an
additional factor:  a major feature of every distributed
renewable strategy I've ever heard of is integral energy
efficiency.  It's not the cost of a gizmo plus the cost
of an efficiency thingy, it's the cost of an efficient
gizmo that.

> Since, historically, central power generation has worked well,
> and mass transit hasn't, a conservative view is that we should
> stick with proven methods.

=\= I don't quite agree with either historical premise.  I
think the track record of central power generation shows great
variance.  Ditto for mass transit, which works very well in
Europe.  (And driving automobiles everywhere is very destructive
-- hardly a "proven method.")
    <_Jym_>
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: True Costs of French
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:04:40 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <22JAN93.09072878@cc4.crl.aecl.ca> camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca writes:

>As we now know, nuclear capacity worldwide is not even close to the
>projections, and the discovery of new, large, high-grade uranium deposits
>in Saskatchewan has driven down uranium prices, so that currently fast
>breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing are nowhere near as attractive as
>they once seemed.

OK, they got their market timeing wrong.  No problem with that, it
can happen to the best enterprises.

>The French policy towards fast breeders was quite appropriate at the time
>it was conceived, and it is rather unthoughtful to call it a fiasco using
>tha benefit of hindsight.  If all industrialized countries had pushed nuclear
>with the same vigour and general success as the French, their move towards
>fast breeders would have been seen as far-sighted and correct.

Agreed, but is market timing ALL there was to it?

>It is true that the SuperPheonix has had some technical problems, but it is
>not obvious that they could not be overcome in that reactor or successors,
>if there were still the same drive and commitment to the concept. 

Ahh, no it wasn't all.  So what were the technical problems?  I fully
expect that breeders will be needed in my lifetime, so I'm more than
a little interested in knowing if it was a trivial failure or if the
technical issues ran deeper...  (in other words, mis-sizing a motor
or faster than expected burnup wouldn't worry me; but a problem with
the fundamental reprocessing technology requiring a whole new approach
would argue for building a new research plant now.  (Given the lead times
involved in R&D ...)).

-- 

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: rriche@engr.LaTech.edu (Ricky P. Riche)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Electric Vehicle-Questions???
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:00:56 GMT
Organization: Louisiana Tech University
NNTP-Posting-Host: me05.engr.latech.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

If you know of anyone who has built an electric vehicle or if you
have can you send me your address so I can ask a few questions?

Typical questions include:

1.	How many batteries were used and what exact type where they?
2.	Did you use the exact same transmission already in the car
	(This is for a gas powered car conversion)
	(We are converting an 81 Rabbit)

3.	What are the typical problems that are incurred in putting
	all componets together?

4.	Regenerative braking-Is it worth it for the time and effort
	that is put into it and for the energy savings.

5. 	What was the typical range of the car.



These are some of the questions that I would like to have answered.
If you are also working on an electric car, I would gladlly exchange
information with you.



					Thank YOU

					Ricky Riche
					rriche@engr.latech.edu
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7178 talk.environment:5680
From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Energy Strategy and Global Warming
Keywords: energy efficiency CO2 abatement cost effective
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:00:12 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1993Jan21.230554.28718@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
# In article <1993Jan20.130701.14221@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk
(James Hammerton) writes:
# >Yet, in going from a fuel to electricity,
# >there is always a considerable amount of waste heat produced. This can
# >be used profitably to heat buildings. This is known as cogeneration(or 
# >combined heat and power;'CHP'). CHP stations that provide electricity for
# >a grid, and heat for houses in the local area, can achieve efficiencies
# >of 70% or more(what I mean is that 'useful energy' in the form of useful
# >heat or electricity, is 70% of the energy avialable in the original
# >fuel)[10]. 
# 
# But Greenpeace grossly condradicts itself on this issue.
# 
# Greenpeace says:
# 1. CHP can double (or more) the efficiency by sending waste heat to nearby
#    city buildings (and it is a LOT of waste heat, I might add).
# 
# 2. You're not going to build a nuke/coal plant in my backyard!
# 
# 
# Also, can you imagine if a nuke plant was CHP?
# 
# Greenpeace: "You mean that steam passed through a steam genenerator that
# was in a RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT! Shut it down! Shut it down!"
# 
# Get real. You can't have it both ways.

I think I've already replied to these points before, however here goes again.
Firstly, I am not suggesting we use nuclear power in this way, and you are
right that there would be a reaction against it. Secondly CHP is widely used
in Sweden, Denmark and other countries have schemes going as well. The main 
objection to CHP, would be local air pollution. Using fluidized bed
combustion
most pollutants of any fuel be it wood, coal, rubbish etc can be removed
cheaply.
Indeed FBC units can take different kinds of fuel. Finally due to the doubled
efficiency only half the potential pollution would be produced anyway. In the
long
run we are talking about using biomass based CHP and CHP that burns rubbish.
Both
technologies exist, both use resources more productively. Finally I am not
suggesting we build these things blindly. They do have impacts, they should
be
considered and the people who will live with them consulted. Experience of CHP
so
far though suggests that there are few barriers to it's uptake. Greenpeace
aren't
contradicting themselves on this point at least.

James


-- 
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *
Xref: sparky sci.energy:7258 talk.environment:5763
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 10:37:57 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <Jym.25Jan1993.0304@naughty-peahen>, Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
=> I have no problems with the scientists who do the work and
=> report it in peer-reviewed journals.  I do have something
=> against the radical fringe of the environmental movement (like
=> Greenpeace) that is quick to take a few snippets of scientific
=> results that might support their political stands, then turn
=> around and crucify the very scientists who report the data . . .
=
==o= Can you cite any incidences of this actually happening?
=
==o= I don't think that anyone, Greenpeace included, is going
=to argue that these press releases are any substitute for
=scientific research.  Having been both a press agent and an
=editor, I've been on both ends of many press releases.  They
=are odd beasts, hastily written in odd prose designed to be
=all things to all people.  I know of no organization whose
=press releases don't suffer from these problems.

Somehow, that's not surprising.  You seem to believe that GreenHype's press
releases, which invariable leave out key facts are reasonable.  I take it
you've never worked for a legitimate scientific organization?  Most of the
press releases I've seen from such include all the critical information, though
some of that information may be toward the end of the press release.  If a
newspaper wants to trim the release and exclude the critical information, they
can do so.  GreenHype doesn't give them the option.

==o= Greenpeace (the organization) does a good deal of research
=and does indeed subject it to peer review.  If you have problems
=with this research, do speak u, but don't resort to the _ad_
=_hominem_ approach of rejecting it automatically because you
=don't like the way another part of the organization writes its
=press releases.

Well, how about simply rejecting GreenHype's press releases, Jym.  Why not do
us a favor and instead of posting the bullshit from the press releases, post
at least synopses of the research reports?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: True Costs of French
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:29:12 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <27JAN93.11382848@cc4.crl.aecl.ca> camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>The scientific viability of fast reactor technology has, I feel, been 
>adequately demonstrated.  High plutonium content, high burn-up fuels have 
>been successfully made and used, the science and engineering of fuel
>reprocessing is obviously doable, or else there would not be so many
>nuclear weapons in existence, and the French do have a plant in operation
>that vitrifies the high level waste from fuel reprocessing.
>
>The problems with SuperPheonix are largely associated with the use
>of liquid sodium as a coolant.  These problems are of an engineering
>nature, rather than fundamental and should be soluble given enough 
>effort.  I would refer you to a posting of 93/01/26 by Joseph Askew, who
>originally raised this issue on the net, in which he gives further 
>details of the technology and agrees with my view that the technical
>issues can probably be overcome.
>

Here's a genuine, non-rhetorical question. How do the "engineering" 
problems of getting a breeder reactor to work compare with the problems
of getting cheap/reliable photo-electric panels to work. If you were
asked to explain why $Nbillion dollars of of research monies should be
pumped into one technology or the other, what arguments would you make?


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Energy from space Sustain Future
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:38:32 GMT

In article <1466300153@igc.apc.org> Ad Astra Ltd. <adastra@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>Energy from space Sustainable futures
>Using energy from space, satellite power systems, transmitted
>to earth via microwaves offers a sustainable, environmentally
>benign source of energy

SPS offers all the disadvantages of single point failure and
loss of local control of any central power system without the
offsetting economic benefits. Environmentally, SPS is no better
than large terrestrial arrays while having much higher construction
and maintenance costs.

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     |                     |
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Blah Blah Blah
Date: 27 Jan 1993 17:15:35 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> Just why is it that GreehHype [sic] doesn't say anything about
> the spill in Estonia?

=o= How do you know they didn't?  It's not as if my access to
their press releases is systematic; I download what I can, when
I can.  Why don't you call them up and ask about it?

> Could it be that they want only to criticize the policies of
> western nations?

=o= Could it be that you've failed to read all the recent press
releases regarding sunken Russian nuclear submarines?

> Why, for example, didn't then condemn Saddam Hussein for
> torching the Kuwaiti oil fields?

=o= I've given references to such condemnation three times now.
Get a grip.
    <_Jym_>
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:31:45 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan22.015318.11900@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>see any of that. Therefore, the producer has no incentive to develop higher 
>cost reserves. Making *gasoline* $5 a gallon by taxes doesn't increase the 
>price paid for *oil* to the producers, so they don't develop more expensive 
>reserves. You have to "follow the money" to understand supply and demand. 
>In the case of a gas tax, the effect is that the government demands money 
>and the consumer is forced to supply it. The government isn't in the oil 
>recovery business, so any money that goes to them is money that can't be 
>spent developing new reserves. The effect of a gas tax is to *reduce*
>oil exploration and development which *reduces* reserves.

The intent of the gas tax would be to encourage development of alternatives to
petroleum use, to encourage efficient use of gasoline, and to recover
the costs of auto pollution,
not to encourage further exploitation of reserves. In any case, I'm not
sure why you think that a larger profit margin for OPEC nations would
lead to further exploitation of reserves: after all, as oil prices rise, 
the value of reserves in the ground increases, and there's no sense in 
turning assets of increasing value into more volatile assets.

BTW, government tax laws have subsidized railway corporations, but not
rail transportation. For example, the Penn Central railway, proud
owners of the pre-Reagan largest bankrupcy in US history, funneled 
billions from rails into real estate investments and after bleeding the
rail roads, spun off a holding corporation with both the assets and the
multi-billion dollar tax write-off, leaving the taxpayers with the rusted
ruins of the track system and railstock. 
 
Figuring out relative subisidies to auto and rail transportation would be
useful, but tough. Also, costs/utility of rail vs. road obviously differ
dramatically between regions and economic sector. Large scale
grain producers absolutely require rail or water, trucks won't do it.
Fast rail links in the northeast
could be faster than air/auto, but that seems unlikely for Montana. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:29:32 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:


>=o= Can you cite any incidences of this actually happening?

>=o= Greenpeace (the organization) does a good deal of research
>and does indeed subject it to peer review.  

Can you cite any incidences of this actually happening?

Oh, never mind.....

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,talk.environment
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: 100 mpg
Originator: nickh@SNOW.FOX.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1993Jan21.105316.12424@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <90524@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<1993Jan21.222503.11042@michael.apple.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:16:37 GMT

Guess I should point out that the figure which sparked this discussion
was "100 miles per UK gallon". A UK gallon is approx 1.2 US gallons
(160 floz instead of 128, and the floz are slightly smaller). So this
number is ~83 mpg in US terms.

Now back to your regular, appallingly US-centric debate. Me, I'm outta here.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu