HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Where to get Electric Car kits?
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:12:43 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Nov7.225407.2102@nwnexus.WA.COM> edm@halcyon.com (Ed Morin) writes:
>pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>>Of the 4 models of Honda Civics sold today, the HP ratings are 70, 92,
>>102, 125.  3 out of 4 are close to or over 100 HP. Mine is a 92 HP
>
>Those HP ratings for combustion engines can be a bit misleading.  They
>are only for specific RPM ranges.  I think you might be wiser to compare
>torque ratings.  Also, remember that a Honda going down the highway only
>requires a fraction of the total horsepower available.  For acceleration
>from a dead stop, the electric engine will be great because it has much
>better low-RPM torque characteristics.

Torque alone is a meaningless way to measure power requirements. Any 
amount of torque can be generated by sufficient gearing from any given
power output. The *rate* at which the torque can be delivered is strictly
a function of the power output. That's determined by torque times RPM.
Thus acceleration is a function of power output versus inertia and drag,
not engine torque alone.

*Some* designs of DC electric motors have high torque at low RPM, series
wound motors, but not all. And series wound motors are unstable under load.
Shunt wound motors have peak torque above stall RPM. AC induction motors, 
much more efficient, have zero torque at stall. Thus they must, like gasoline 
engines, be operated above a minimum RPM.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: greg@core.rose.hp.com (Greg Dolkas)
Subject: Electric Car feasible for me?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:14:19 GMT
Organization: HP - Systems Technology Division
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1.3 PL5


I've been toying with getting/making an electric car for commute purposes,
but the logistics of my commute have been a worry...

The commute is 23 miles each way; 46 miles round trip.  Maximum speed is 55
(or so :-) mph.  This is well within the capabilities of cars I've read about.
The problem is that I live at 1250 ft elevation, and my employment is at about
100 ft.  The commute is 90% freeway, so at the time when the batteries are
winding down the car will need to be doing freeway speeds *up hill*.  

Is this feasible with current, readily available, technology?

Thanks,

Greg.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: bwrossma@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brian Rossmajer)
Subject: Re: Electric Car feasible for me?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:22:27 GMT

greg@core.rose.hp.com (Greg Dolkas) writes:

>The commute is 23 miles each way; 46 miles round trip.  Maximum speed is 55
>(or so :-) mph.  This is well within the capabilities of cars I've read about.
>The problem is that I live at 1250 ft elevation, and my employment is at about
>100 ft.  The commute is 90% freeway, so at the time when the batteries are
>winding down the car will need to be doing freeway speeds *up hill*.  

   My impression has been that with an electric car with regenerative
   braking, the only thing that matters (in theory) is friction.
   If, on one charge, you travel a displacement of zero, then it
   shouldn't matter if you go up & down.  In this case, the batteries 
   won't be "winding down" when you go uphill because they wouldn't
   have lost much energy when you went _down_ the hill that morning.

   Am I mistaken?
--
        bwrossmajer@descartes.uwaterloo.ca          (Brian W. Rossmajer)
 BrI    University of Waterloo; Computer Science, Electrical Engineering
        Disclaimer:  What is truth?  Is mine the same as yours?
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Subject: Re: U.S. Renewable Research E
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:56:47 GMT

In article <3958.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:

>These numbers don't add up. The DOE budget for R&D this next year alone
>is $38 billion with the biggest portion going to nuclear. The totals
>for the years 1976 - 1992 are probably more like $100 billion each
>for nuclear and coal and $4 billion for renewables.

But a _huge_ portion of the DoE budget goes to weapons R$D, not civilian
nuclear energy.  If you have the actual numbers, please post them.  Otherwise,
I'm currently looking into the references behind that _Nuclear Canada_ 
article and will report back.

-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Where to get Electric
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

EMS>What 'battery consortium' is 'sitting on' NiMH batteries?

EMS>Given that I've bought 4 AA cells (and others are avialiable from
EMS>Real Goods mail order...) and that the latest Apple product (the
EMS>Duo, I think it's called) uses a NiMH battery, it doesn't look to
EMS>me like the battery technology is being sat upon...  It is a new
EMS>technology, so there are higher startup costs and tooling time
EMS>and market development delays... buy NiMH is growing 'like a weed'!
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
The  U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) recently awarded  a
grant  of  $18.5 million to the Ovonic Battery Company  of  Troy,
Michigan,  maker of a prototype nickel-metal-hydride battery  and
holder of several patents on the process.

A  subsidiary of Energy Conversion Devices Inc., Ovonic will  co-
fund  30 percent of the money. The rest will consist of  matching
funds from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and USABC, a joint
venture  between  DOE,  Chrysler, Ford and  General  Motors  with
technical support from Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

Ovonic already markets small batteries based on nickel and  metal
hydrides  that  are used in small appliances.  The  new  contract
calls  for  a larger version for use in  electric  vehicles  that
weighs half of current batteries, provides a cruising range of at
least 250 miles, amnd a charging time of 15 minutes.

According to Stanford R. Ovshinsky, president of Ovonic's  parent
company,  the  prototype will be ready for testing  by  the  mid-
1990s, and will make electric cars cost competitive with gasoline
powered vehicles before the end of the decade. (from a newsletter
published by Earth Options Institute)
 --------------------------------------------------------------
That battery consortium. "mid1990s" is kind of vague - wuold you
believe from now to maybe 1998 for testing?. It may be the way
the story is written, but it sounds like someone is dragging their
feet.

More later.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Electric school buses--reply to chatter
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:20:52 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's


       
>   As a filthy black cloud farted out of the school bus ahead
> of me on my way to work, I wondered 
> "Why arent those things electric ?"
> 
> Think about it :
> Very low mileage fixed routes.
> Maximum speed need not be 55 mph.
> Time to recharge in the middle of the day.
> Huge vehicle size to carry big heavy (lead?) batteries.
> and use an old gas buss for occaisional field trips.

Hey, you're really on to something!

I remember when the buses ran hours late in the winter becuase they couldn't
get them started.

Also, GM insists that operating an Impact electric car is like getting 80 miles
to the gallon (80 miles per $1.13).  Could such savings be found in running
buses that way?

This deserves a serious looking into.

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.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Car feasible for me?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 18:26:02 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 <BxnxHG.97C@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, bwrossma@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brian Rossmajer) writes:
=greg@core.rose.hp.com (Greg Dolkas) writes:
=
=>The commute is 23 miles each way; 46 miles round trip.  Maximum speed is 55
=>(or so :-) mph.  This is well within the capabilities of cars I've read about.
=>The problem is that I live at 1250 ft elevation, and my employment is at about
=>100 ft.  The commute is 90% freeway, so at the time when the batteries are
=>winding down the car will need to be doing freeway speeds *up hill*.  
=
=   My impression has been that with an electric car with regenerative
=   braking, the only thing that matters (in theory) is friction.
=   If, on one charge, you travel a displacement of zero, then it
=   shouldn't matter if you go up & down.  In this case, the batteries 
=   won't be "winding down" when you go uphill because they wouldn't
=   have lost much energy when you went _down_ the hill that morning.
=
=   Am I mistaken?

Yes.  All regenerative braking buys him in this situation is that he needn't
charge up his batteries completely while he's at home.  The downhill trip would
top off the charge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: U.S. Renewable Research Exceeds Nuclear
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:46:17 GMT
Organization: The World


    These figures are wrong.  For one, there is a lot of nuclear research
that falls under the DoD budgets (the DoE and the DoD have some arrangement
to do budget tricks).  Second, if you measure the amount of R&D by the
amount of software developed in each area, then nuclear R&D is about five
times larger than everything else.  Keep in mind that much federal R&D
in energy is driven by Defense needs (fission/fusion), and the rest is
public posturing.

Greg Aharonian
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
From: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Petroleum subsidies question. (was Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Date: 14 Nov 92 03:21:17 GMT
Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Organization: Swarthmore College

kline@well.sf.ca.us (David Kline) writes:
> 
> The conversion to renewables  will undoubtedly be a long and gradual process
> of improving the renewable devices,  properly pricing the conventional 
> alternatives, and nudging the marketplace in a few strategic places to get them
> going.

Does anyone out there have any figures or an estimate of the amount of
subsidies (direct or indirect) for oil and fossil fuels?  I know that the
price of gasoline is <half of what it is in the rest of the industrialized
world. I'm convinced that the price of oil here is subsidized, but I can't
back that up.  The best I can say is that there should be a higher tax on
petroleum, but that isn't really a subsidy.

-->Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy		(215)543-8961
	dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu	pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
======================================================================
Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
	50 yards later: "Campground	Next Right"
"Why do you kill people?"   -   "I am a terminator."  [Terminator 2]
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Subject: Re: Request: info on desalination and solar energy
Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:44:32 GMT

lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Nosek) writes:
> 
> 	Yikes! are you sure that it would be feasable to desalinate water
> with solar energy? I heard that they are making desalination plants in the
> middle east now - and the reason that they can afford it is because oil is
> dirt cheap over there - IT TAKES A LOT OF ENERGY TO REMOVE THE SALT FROM 
> SEAWATER - more than the sun could provide unless there were some sort of 
> technological miracle in solar energy.

Actually, you remove the water from the sea-water.  You've probably done
this yourself - take the saltwater, boil it, condense the vapor and - BAM -
pure H2O.  All you're left with is the salt sediment in the seawater tank.

So all you would need is to raise the seawater temperature above 100 C,
which is well within the range of currently available, mass produced thermal 
solar collectors.  You're right, it does take a lot of energy, but then
again the sun puts out a lot of energy.  The limiting factor is the
temperature needed:  If your collector could only achieve 60 C (like some
hot air based solar collectors)  then you couldn't boil the water.

The reason that the Gulf countries are using desalination is because it is
the most economically and politically viable method.  They have mega-bucks
and lots of "free" energy in the form of oil, no fresh water sources to tap
and the Gulf full of seawater right on their shores.  It would be to much
bother to bring water from, say, Turkey, or an iceberg from the antarctic,
compared to desalination.

So, how about it?  Anyone out there with sources/information for me about
desalination?

-->Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy		(215)543-8961
	dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu	pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
======================================================================
Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
	50 yards later: "Campground	Next Right"
"Why do you kill people?"   -   "I am a terminator."  [Terminator 2]

Xref: sparky sci.energy:5361 sci.environment:12685
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:00:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: meteor.1992Nov12.190010.5512
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Nov12.053900.1471@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>You can assign a cash value to freedom from the grid. Grid power costs
>around $.10 per kWh in many areas of the US. The array in the German
>house provides about 40 kWh per day, or about $4 worth of electricity
>at grid prices per day. The house cost DM 1.6 million. At current mortgage
>rates of 8%, that's 350 DM per day for *interest alone*. Now I don't know 
>the current exchange rate, but I'm sure that 350 DM is more than $4. And
>you still won't ever own the home free and clear unless you attack that
>1.6 million principal.

Though I think getting off the grid is utterly silly, the comparison is
false, not only because, as someone else pointed out, there are one-time
development costs involved, but also because you have compared the cost
of the entire house with the cost of grid electricity. Working backwards
from $4/day, $1500/yr, means a capitalization of solar plant would be
cost effective at around $15000, at today's low interest rates and 
low energy costs, for that level of consumption.

>> Has all power been restored in Miami yet? 
>
>Few people lost power in Miami at all. Now Homestead, that's a different
>matter. Few people have electricity there, but then few people have
>*houses* there anymore either so the point is moot. 

This is really the problem. There is really much less to be gained from
decentralized power than many people are willing to realize. For instance,
a friend of mine recently was all excited about getting off the grid, and
I asked him if he were willing to sacrifice that most valuable of modern
amenities, Star Trek TNG. He replied that he envisioned a great bank
of lead acid batteries charging all day to provide power at night. 

I pointed out that the environmental degradation of this approach would
far exceed anything due to the grid if it were widely adopted, since
individual homes burn to the ground every day, and the toxic waste load
due to all those batteries would surely exceed the expectation of damage
due to any centralized generating facility. Having reduced the argument
to hydrogeology, my friend's specialty, he immediately saw the point, but
I'm not sure others will.

There really are economies of scale, folks, even in environmental impact.
Maybe in the not too distant future, flywheel technology will do the job,
but charging up lead batteries in your house is not doing the environment
any favors. 

So what was the storage technology of this off-the-grid house again? 
This looks to me like another triumph of symbol over substance.

mt
Xref: sparky sci.energy:5398 sci.environment:12707
From: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Re: opening of the first self-sufficient solar house, Press Release
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:57:32 GMT
Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Organization: Swarthmore College

henigan@quando.quantum.de (Kevin Henigan) writes:
> ]
> ]   By  electrolysing  water  into  its  components,  hydrogen  and
> ]oxygen, and  storing both  gases in pressure tanks, about 1500 kWh
>	[...........]
> ]developed in ISE. The hydrogen tank next to the house has a volume
> ]of 15  m3, the  oxygen tank  holds 7.5 m3. The tank pressure is 30
> ]bar.

I have a question about the hydrogen storage method.  I haven't come across
this system of storing energy before, and I wonder about the safety of this
system.  If I remember correctly, hydrogen is an extremely flammable
substance, and not something that I would want to live on top of.

So.  What is the danger involved of sitting on top of 15,000 liters of
hydrogen under pressure, as opposed to, for example, an equivalent tank of
cooking gas or the "regular" 2 or 3 m^3 (by my vague estimation) tanks that
sit by the house?

What would be some alternative methods of seasonal energy storage? Phase
change systems, heat storage systems, miniature black holes?

A note to those with the sarcastic tone that I perceive out there:
You gotta start somewhere.  Rome wasn't built in a day. [insert your
favorite list of cliche's].  If efforts such as this are not made, then the
chances of developing anything feasible under all criteria are close to
zero.  First you have to go through the small scale, expensive stages, and
then move on to the large scale mass-production phases.  Cars, computers,
buildings and all the rest didn't come on a silver platter.

-->Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy		(215)543-8961
	dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu	pedersen@engin.swarthmore.edu
======================================================================
Highway sign on I-10, AZ: "Federal Prison - Do Not Pick Up Hitch-Hikers"
	50 yards later: "Campground	Next Right"
"Why do you kill people?"   -   "I am a terminator."  [Terminator 2]
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: A Compressed-Air Car -- Possible?
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:24:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: kestrel.1992Nov12.002426.5219
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <BxIEqA.L0z@Novell.COM> steveo@mobius (Steve Olson) writes:
>>According to my calculations (based on a Gast airmotor catalogue), such a
>>vehicle would need air tanks that could hold 100,000 psi.
>
>The nitrogen and oxygen in air liquify at a much lower pressure than
>100,000 psi. 
>I think around 1200 psi. This makes it impossible to reach a higher pressure 
>because liquids do not compress very well.
>
>Maybe your idea would work with 1000 psi. You might need a bigger tank than
>anticipated but 1000 psi in a 100 gal tank represents a good deal of energy.
>
>
>
>
>Regards,
>Steve Olson


SCUBA tanks go well over 3000 PSI these days.

-dk
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: kline@well.sf.ca.us (David Kline)
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:26:04 GMT

In <1992Nov6.171522.1259@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.) writes:

>Most of our energy comes from the sun (which is not renewable, but we
>have no control of this). If we conserve energy, can we live off solar
>energy alone? What has been shown? Let's compare our basic energy needs
>to the energy we can get from sunlight. Can we gather enough energy from
>sunlight to live on and to construct energy saving goods? Do we have an
>energy surplus?

One of the lines of research ongoing at National Renewable Energy Lab addresses just this question:  what kind of solar (and biomass, and geothermal, and wind)
resources are out there.

The answer to your last question, in gross oversimplification, would have to be
"yes and no."  The amount of sunlight, even in low-sunlight places like upstate
New York, is much larger than the annual energy budget.  The problems using it
are mostly economic:  the conversion efficiency of the hardware is relatively
low, and they are relatively costly.

The conversion to renewables  will undoubtedly be a long and gradual process
of improving the renewable devices,  properly pricing the conventional 
alternatives, and nudging the marketplace in a few strategic places to get them
going.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Subject: Re: A Compressed-Air Car -- Possible?
Organization: Puplic-Access-Xenix-System
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 00:13:42 GMT

In <1992Nov9.155936.11659@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:

>I'm looking into the concept of running an automobile off of compressed air.

>According to my calculations (based on a Gast airmotor catalogue), such a
>vehicle would need air tanks that could hold 100,000 psi.


Do you wanna build a bomb ???

:-))  better not, I wouldn't trust the material to withstand this..

Better look into a technology like Stanley Meyer by spliting water on
the fly to oxigen and hydroxid..


>Is that at all possible?

>Thanks for your help,

>CM

>-- 
>       Craig Meyer                 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
>       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
>       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433
a
Best regards, Stefan Hartmann, c/o Ingenierbuero Gatz & Hartmann.
email to:  leo@zelator.in-berlin.de


-- 
 
*************************************************************
*  Stefan Hartmann       This is how to contact me:         *
*  EMAIL: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de                          *
*  Phone : ++ 49 30 344 23 66      FAX : ++ 49 30 344 92 79 *
*************************************************************