HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:20:45 GMT

In article <51730@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.164918.22167@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec31.024353.15278@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>> >In article <1992Dec30.211459.28435@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> >I couldn't see solar and wind supporting a country of 10-20 million or more,
>> >and I wouldn't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon carries off the 
>> >country's entire capacity of solar panels.
>> 
>> I woudln't want to be in Bangladesh when a typhoon carries off a
>> containment structure.
>
>No comparison.  Containment structures are designed to withstand the strongest
>tornadoes - a mere typhoon would simply give the plant a nice bath.  However,
>solar panels must be openly exposed to the sun to work.  This leaves them
>vulnerable to being blown all over the countryside by strong winds.  Just
>look at some of the stuff our last big hurricane did in Florida.  That's
>exactly what a typhoon does.  The solar demonstration project out in the
>Mojave in California does not need to worry about such storms, it will
>never experience one.  Bangladesh does have nuclear power and it has not
>been carried away in the typhoons they get every year.

Okay, I can accept that.  Someone e-mailed to me to say that India has
a home-grown nuclear industry but I guess Bangladesh wouldn't get
technology from them.  If this is working for Bangladesh (and India),
I have no problems with it.
>
>--
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>stead@seismo.css.gov

-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Date: 24 Dec 1992 12:14:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



I have to give Japan tremendous credit for this:

Just saw on news report that Japanese gov plus major
businesses have developed ==100 year== plan to clean
the earth, including

Sanyo is busy developing cheap solar panels for homes.
Mitsubishi heavily into improving wind generation economy.
Algae systems to scrub CO2 from air from coal gen plants.
Massive solar power systems to supply clean electricity global,
with vast arrays in African desert 
for example, piping electric power worldwide.

They took the vision and are moving ahead with it.

When will the U.S.?


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:11:35 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <51718@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <Bzu6DJ.I6v@ns1.nodak.edu>, csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec25.134459.7728@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> >liquid gasoline can't explode. Only gasoline vapor properly mixed
>> >with oxygen, 14:1 air/fuel ratio, can explode. 
>> Normally I wouldn't find fault with such an insignificant detail, but
>[...]
>> explosion.  You don't need perfect 14:1 to cause an explosion.
>
>While on insignificant details, I will point out that any deviation from
>the 14:1 ideal mixture may still explode, but will not release the maximum
>power.  That is, with too much gas, a lot of the gas will not combust in the
>explosion.  With too much air, some gas will not combust, and the speed
>of the explosion is less, resulting in less power.

I agree, and would like to add some more comments.
This is true.  Deviations from the ideal 14:1 mixture will not result
in the maximum explosive force possible for the given amount of 
gasoline.  But I say this to everyone who has made a comment about
needing a 14:1 mixture:  Even if you are not causing the biggest bang
possible, the explosion can still hurt people, and hurt them badly.

I am not trying to say that this makes gas just as dangerous as
spinning flywheels, it was just bothering me that people were basing 
the probability of a dangerous gas/air explosion on the odds of having 
an ideal 14:1 gas air mixture, when in fact anything remotly resembling 
14 to 1 has a chance of causing a dangerous bang...

Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.med
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:53:20 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Cancer Risks at Hanford??
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: hanford, radiation, cancer, nuclear waste

In article <1h5finINNb0t@post.its.mcw.edu> jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu (John Moulder) writes:
>Recently there has been considerable press coverage in the US of a report by 
>Alice Stewart and George Kneale of "excess" cancer in workers at Hanford (a US 
>nuclear weapons lab and radioaactive waste disposal site).  
>
>Does anyone know anything more about this study than what was in the press, 
>like study design, numbers, etc.??
>
>I realize that this is not exactly an energy issue, but since there are clearly 
>people who read this newsgroup who interested in issues related to nuclear 
>power and nuclear waste disposal . . .
>
>BTW:  Sorry if this is a duplicate, but I think my first post aborted.
>
>John Moulder (jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu)      414-266-4672
>Radiation Biology Group
>Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisc     

Alice Stewart has pulled another coup.  The normal time lag for responses to
journal articles to hit the streets is about 4 months.  By releasing her
"results" 4 months before publication, she has an 8-month jump on
critical review.

If her past practice can be used as an indicator, she will take a
population with lower than normal cancer rates, divide it into many
subsets, and report those with "higher than expected" values as
meaningful...all without consideration of the total number of trials,
and without consideration of all those subsets with lower than "normal" 
results.

One can, of course, do the same thing with a matrix of random numbers. 
The next step is (and has been in her earlier Hanford work) to divide
the "effect" by the dose for the usually small population to get a 
dose-response.  The smaller the dose, the larger the inferred
dose-response; it would, of course, become very large as the dose
approached zero.

Sadly, this practice is rather common among those who have a priori
answers, and only grope around for facts to support them.  My view is that
they find only statistical sheep in imaginary wolves' clothing.  The sad
thing is that the press and the public are taken in by them.  The
charges, however ridiculous, stick; the scientific critiques, however
valid, rarely see the light of day.

All in all, it is reminiscent of the words of Samuel Johnson, who said,
"That fellow seems to me to possess but one idea, and that is a wrong one."   

------
Dr. William Hendee of your institution could provide insight into this
problem.  (phone: 257-4402)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: 21 Dec 1992 08:40:59 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 <4890.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>GC>Well I screwed this up royally, let's try again.
>
>GC>A pound of gas has 118,000 BTU and there are 7 pounds to the gallon.
>GC>So a gallon of gas has 826,000 BTU. A BTU is 293e-6 kWH, so a gallon
>GC>of gas is equivalent to 242 kWH. IC engines are about 23% efficient,
>GC>so a gallon of gas is equivalent to 55.66 kWH. At $.11 a kWH, a gallon
>GC>of gas is equivalent to $6.12 of electricity. So gas has to reach
>GC>$6.12 a gallon before electricity becomes cost competitive. And that's
>GC>if the vehicles are the same price.
>
>But aren't you forgetting that mechanically coupled EVs are better
>than 50% efficient from the plug to the street and direct drives can
>approach 80%. That, coupled with the reduced rates many utilities give
>for off-hours charging, makes the EV more than competitive.

Yes, he *DID* forget that EV's are about 50% efficient.  If he'd added that
in to his calculations, he'd've realized that the break-even price for
gasoline is about $12.24/kWH.  He *DID* take into account the fact that IC
engines are only about 23% efficient.  Next time, maybe you ought to take the
time to read the post to which you're responding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Third world energy
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 05:13:37 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)  writes:


>The mind set established by Nicola Tesla, George Westinghouse, and the
>Rural Electification Administration, originally pushed by the coal
>industry and now the nuclear crowd, is not necessarily valid when
>applied to developing countries.

The mindset has nothing to do with it.  Most of the third world will
remain third world.  The theory that much of Africa and parts of 
Asia will suddenly throw down their spear and clubs and put on suites
and want to buy BMWs to drive to their highrise condos is just flat
wistful thinking.  Solar, wind and other low technology, soft
energy will do just fine there because their energy requirements
will remain light.

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.
From: Ligon@macgw1.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Ground Source Heat pumps
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:38:43 GMT
Followup-To: sci.energy
Organization: GE-CRD

My wife and I are about to start renovation of an old farmhouse in central
Virginia.  We are seriously considering heating/cooling using a ground
source heat pump.  Has anyone got first hand experience with these?

How about a review article or a list of manufacturers???.

Thanks in advance.

Woody Ligon
(ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com)

Standard disclaimer applies.
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: hot water
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:46:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

M> First, my home heating system is essentially a oil-fired hot water
M> heater (except the hot water heats my house not a shower) and it is
M> rated as 87% efficient.  Higher efficiency is available.  I see no
M> reason why an oil fired hot water heater should be only 20-30%
M> efficient.

The problem with oil and gas water heaters is the flue. It has to have
low thermal resistance to the water and also low resistance to the flow
of the fumes and air up from the bottom of 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.

If the damper fails, you're in trouble.

Electric heaters don't have these problems.

The most efficient system for a large household is an active, roof-top
mounted, solar heater with a large electric heater in loop for storage
and standbye heating. All well insulated, of course.

M> Second, while the electric heater is 100% efficient at converting
M> the electricity you pay for into heat, the power plant is only about
M> 40% efficient at generating the electricity and getting it to you.

M> This is reflected in the higher price of electricity compared to oil.

Yes, but you also have pay the man to bring the oil to your house.

-Mike
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . This tagline is umop apisdn
                                                                                     
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: Blair.Haworth@launchpad.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Subject: Re: A gripe, and Re: Flywheel batteries...
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:00:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.165210.28613@samba.oit.unc.edu> Blair.Haworth@launchpad.unc.edu (Blair Haworth) writes:

>HEAT-MP, (20 x 10kg x 15% explosive filling by weight=) 30kg explosive
                                                ^^^^^^
Whups.  Sould be "mass".  People who live in glass houses, eh?
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: Essential Information <ei@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 31 Dec 92 12:42 PST
Subject: Energy Ideas - Thermal Env.
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466300127:000:1183
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ei    Dec 31 12:42:00 1992




ENERGY IDEAS -- Building Envelope (Vol. 1, No. 4, October 1992)

This issue of Energy Ideas focuses on the thermal envelope of a
building -- the windows, walls and roof.  A great deal of energy
can be transferred through a building envelope, requiring a
greater expenditure of energy to maintain comfort.  

Infiltration of hot, humid air in the summer requires additional
cooling as well as dehumidification.  Infiltration of cold air in
the winter requires additional heating.

Aside from air infiltration, conductive and radiative heat loss
and gain add to heating and cooling loads.  Proper insulation of
walls and the roof, as well as the installation of low-
conductivity windows, will minimize conductive transfer. 
Installation of radiant barriers and low-emissivity (low-E)
windows will minimize radiative transfer.  This issue will cover
these topics in greater detail.

To read a particular article, enter <index #>.<article #>

1.  Introduction
2.  Windows - minimizing conductive and radiative losses
3.  The Heat Island Effect - are our cities getting warmer ?
4.  Energy savings with Insulation
5.  Radiant Barriers - enhancing insulation performance
6.  Resources
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Date: 28 Dec 1992 22:30:39 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 <1hc9imINNaq1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
=
=
=I have to give Japan tremendous credit for this:
=
=Just saw on news report that Japanese gov plus major
=businesses have developed ==100 year== plan to clean
=the earth, including
=
=Sanyo is busy developing cheap solar panels for homes.
=Mitsubishi heavily into improving wind generation economy.
=Algae systems to scrub CO2 from air from coal gen plants.
=Massive solar power systems to supply clean electricity global,
=with vast arrays in African desert 
=for example, piping electric power worldwide.
=
=They took the vision and are moving ahead with it.
=
=When will the U.S.?

As soon as we decide that we want to lock ourselves into major commitments to
obolete technology for the next 100 years?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: scallan@cleburne.jsc.nasa.gov (-BJS-)
Subject: Re: Mileage vs. Safety concerns in autos
Organization: MDSSC
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:45:33 GMT


   This discussion of alternative power plants / fuels / designs for automobiles
has reminded me of a project which was taking place (I believe) in Australia with
modest financial backing from Ford & Toyota.  A small group of brains and wrench
heads were developing a 2-cycle engine for use in a car.  The advantages being
claimed were increased mileage, lighter powerplant, increased power bands and
cleaner combustion.  Unfortunately, there were several problems for which
solutions were still being worked; higher temperatures than conventional engines,
an imperfect valve system plus additional minor issues.  The current devices
which utilize 2-cycle engines (dirt bikes, chain saws, r/c motors) have gained
justifiable reputations for being temperamental.  But these devices are
implementations that allow these deficiencies to be overlooked / tolerated and
further R&D related to improving these designs is virtually non-existent. 
Perhaps the state-of-the-art has advanced enough to allow improvements which
expand the applications for a 2-cycle motor.

   If anyone has any idea of what I am referring to, could you please post more
details on where the project currently stands.  More details regarding the
advantages and disadvantages also would be appreciated.


					...curiouser and curiouser,

					-BJS-
 -- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Brian J. Scallan,				  scallan@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov

When angry, count four; when very angry, swear.
Pudd'nhead Wilson - M. Twain

The opinions expressed 
should not be interpreted as those 
of my employer or any other (semi-)rational entity.			{-BJS-}
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Popular Science Fly Wheel Article
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 05:25:30 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

[PopSci(fi) article deleted)

>The rest of the article implies that they're using, pretty much, off-the-shelf
>technology.  Why the two-year delay? I know Kevlar's fancy stuff, but TWO YEARS
>to manufacture a flywheel for testing?  Looks to me like these guys are just
>blowing smoke, hoping for a miracle to solve the obvious problems for them
>sometime in the next two years (or maybe they figure that they can hide the
>obvious problems for that long, then head south with the unspent research
>funds).

Looks that way.  Have ya ever noticed that if something appears in 
Pop Sci, it almost never makes it to the real world?  Anyone else remember
the first flywheel article Pop Sci did oh, maybe 25 years ago?  
Back then the "miracle flywheel" would be a thin rim, thick hub disk
rotating in a vacuum.  Deployment was "just around the corner".

Can you just imagine what the "ecostar" (NOT!) would look like with
twenty flywheels on board?  Maybe they'd squeeze a passenger here and
there.  BTW, anyone seen any published figures for Cd and weight on
the ecostar?  I have some new vehicle performance analysis software here
I'm reviewing for the magazine.  I could plug these numbers in and 
estimate the power needed to run this pig.  See how they jive with
published power numbers.

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.
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Japan Takes US to Cleaners
Date: 29 Dec 1992 10:18:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



At first posting I was impressed by the teamwork proposal
and work underway of Japan to perfect clean energy systems.

I was concerned about toxic pollution currently generated
in many areas of industry including power plants.

Now I see the light.

The U.S. knows better.  Whatever it's program or direction is,
is the most intelligent one.

Besides clean energy systems are old fashioned, obsolete,
and besides they just don't work right, nohow.

That pretty well covers it.  I'll stick with them nuke
people for my 'tricity.

###h
-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: New Hydrogen BBS
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:43:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 


                     !!! PROSPERITY WITHOUT POLLUTION !!!

                                Please call the
                       AHA HYDROGEN BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM
                                 (415) 494-3116

                     SupraFaxModem  V.32bis  14400 baud  8N1
                                    24 hours
                            Sysop:  Howard H. Smith

                         AMERICAN HYDROGEN ASSOCIATION
                        210 South Siesta Lane, Suite 101
                             Tempe, AZ 85281   USA
                              Tel: (602) 921-0433

                            AHA BBS: (415) 494-3116


                   HEARLDING THE DAWN OF THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY

                      !!! PROSPERITY WITHOUT POLLUTION !!!

---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
                                                             
----
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: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Popular Science Fly Wheel Article
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:54:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1h41jqINNn2j@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

|	2)  They've reduced the energy stored in each flywheel.  I'd be happier
|	    if they were using about 500 flywheels, but 20's a start.  They're
|	    now only talking about something like 2 sticks of dynamite
|	    equivalent in the event of a flywheel failure.

Only if they put each flywheel in a separate container, otherwise the shock
wave of the first one going will take out all the others.  Of course if they
put them in seperate containers, your car will soon weigh more than your
average tank.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com