HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 06 Oct 92 05:27 PDT
Subject: --WI Aim: 811 MW of Renewables
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466300087:000:2184
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Oct  6 05:27:00 1992


From: Tom Gray <tgray>
Subject: --WI Aim: 811 MW of Renewables

WISCONSIN UTILITIES COMMISSION SEES
811-MW RENEWABLE ENERGY POTENTIAL

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission said in a preliminary order
that the state's electric utilities should plan to boost their
renewable energy generating capacity by 811 MW by the year 2010,
according to The Solar Letter.

The preliminary order, which is expected to be confirmed in July,
also includes a bonus payment ("renewable adder") to utilities who
diversify their resource base by adding renewable capacity, the
article said.

The order was sharply different from projections filed by the
utilities last October.  The utilities had projected capacity needs
of 4,886 MW by 2010, with only 52 MW -- or slightly over one
percent -- coming from renewables.  Instead, the Commission calls
for additions of 3,616 MW, with 811 MW -- or about 22 percent --
from renewables.

The Commission's order also dramatically boosts, to 1,414 MW, the
amount of new generating capacity that would be "supplied" by
conservation and demand-side measures.

The renewable adder would be available for any renewable energy-
based generating plant, the article said, and would last as long as
the plant produces electric power.

===============================

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted, at no cost.

For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back issues
on Usenet or Bitnet, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable
energy, energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The electronic
edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.

*******************************************************************
Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org    UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!tgray

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:07:10 GMT
Organization: WINCO

In article <54402@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

Much dialogue deleted:

>
>And here you go again. You have not looked up the articles I cite, you
>have not found counter references in other scientific literature, yet you
>have no qualms about suggesting that I have "wrenched" quotes "out of
>context" and even rewritten quotes. you apparently believe that accusation
>is a reasonable substitute for research. Feeble.
>
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Although it may be so regarded in the social sciences, looking up stuff
in the library is a literature search, not research.  Studying,
analyzing, calculating, thinking, thinking, thinking . . . is closer to
a partial description of research.
From: kwyatt@ccscola.Columbia (Kershner Wyatt)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Economist article on car battery and flywheel technology.
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:48:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC

Multiple questions follow:

>Flywheels have a drawback.  The energy in a spinning object depends on
>its mass, shape and speed.  A system for use in cars needs to be light
>and compact; to store a lot of energy it therefore nees to spin
>extremely fast (hundreds of thousands of times a minute).  A solid disc,
>even of the strongest material, splits into flying shrapnel at such
>speeds; a rim held to an axle by spikes tends to separate from them.

What method is used to tap off power from a 200,000 rpm flywheel? Gearing
(reduction must be incredible and extremely power consuming)? Generator/motor?
How does one keep the case together if this is the case?

Has the flywheel/battery combo been tried?  For example, have the flywheel
providing a slight charge into the batteries while they are being used.  Would
this provide for a constant power bleed on the flywheel, slowly slowing it
down rather than in steps?

I can see a parking lot full of dead flywheels now...  Excuse me, but can
you give me a jump spinup?  Sorry.

-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: DC->AC
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:06:03 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <15011@auspex-gw.auspex.com> daryl@bovill.auspex.com (Daryl Starr) writes:

>SCR's are silicon controlled rectifiers. I suspect that thyristors (thermally controlled
>resistors) are not used as switches.


Learn to read.  Thyristors are semiconductor devices which include SCRs,
triacs, etc.  Thermistors are temperature-dependent resistors.  I suspect
you are not familiar with semiconductors.

_______________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
From: ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Intelligent Discussions Anyone?
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:57:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: ptolemy.ETHANB.92Oct16105702
Organization: U. of Washington
To: davros@acme.gen.nz (Steven Groom)

Steven Groom (davros@acme.gen.nz) asks for an intelligent discussion
of possible alien contact.  I ask that it not be done in this news
group (sci.energy), since it is totally off the subject.

Please, Steven, repost your request for discussion in a more
appropriate group (perhaps alt.skeptic?).  Please, others, don't
followup here.

-- Ethan (ethanb@u.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.politics.misc
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Energy Act Will Boost U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Production, Says IPAA
Organization: NDA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:30:16 GMT


Here is a press release from the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

 Energy Act Will Boost U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Production
 To: National and Business desks
 Contact: Judy Leon or Jamie Bowers, 202-857-4770, both of
          the Independent Petroleum Association of America

   WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released
today by the Independent Petroleum Association of America:

   The Comprehensive Energy Act passed by the Senate today will
increase domestic oil and natural gas production and create several
thousand new jobs in U.S. oil fields.  The Alternative Minimum Tax
Relief provision contained in the bill will free up over $1 billion
of capital which can be reinvested in the industry.
   "This is the first step on the road to recovery for American oil
and natural gas producers," said Denise Bode, president of the
Independent Petroleum Association of America.  "Freedom from the AMT
burden will mean more production, more jobs and more energy
independence for America."
   The Alternative Minimum Tax imposed a second layer of federal tax
on independent producers forcing many out of business.  In 1992
industry figures were at an all time low.  There were only 8,000
independent oil and natural gas producers left in the United States,
compared with nearly 20,000 a decade ago.  The Comprehensive Energy
Act could result in up to 7,000 new wells being drilled and some
40,000 new oil field jobs in the coming year.  Many of those new
wells will produce natural gas, a clean burning energy source.
   The Energy Act contains policy changes which will result in a
cleaner and safer environment while providing for America's energy
needs.  The legislation contains provisions which will promote
greater energy conservation, increase the use of alternative fuels,
enhance production of solar, wind and geothermal energy resources,
and encourage domestic production of natural gas.
   The bill is expected to be signed into law by President Bush
within the next few days.
 -30-

--
   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:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: sxb@fermi.cray.com (Stephen Behling)
Subject: Re: AP Wire Story on Japan Reactor 
Keywords: Nuclear Power, ECCS Systems
Reply-To: sxb@fermi.cray.com (Stephen Behling)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:12:22 CDT


In article <1992Oct7.043802.1963@news.iastate.edu>, hawk@iastate.edu (John D Hawkinson) writes:
[...]
|> 
|> Assuming the AP article got the age of the reactor right (and screwed up the
|> power rating and the type), the affected reactor is:
|> 
|> Owner:  Tokyo Electric Power Company
|> Unit:   Fukushima Daiichi 2  (there's also a Fukushima Daini 2 owned by the 
|>         same company, but the power listed is way too high....)
|> Power:  760 MW(e), net to grid
|> Type:   Boiling Water Reactor
|> Initial Criticality:  May, 1973
|> Commercial Start:     July, 1974
|> 
|> Reactor Supplier:     General Electric


 [...Interesting hypothetical scenario deleted...]

  Just thought I'd add my two cents about the Japanese nuclear power
program.  I know John A. did a post assuming Japanese built only PWRs.
In Japan, they have both Boiling Water Reactors and Pressurized Water
Reactors.  General Electric built the early BWRs solo, but since then
Hitachi and Toshiba build BWRs.  Westinghouse built the early PWRs, but
since then Mitsubishi Heavy Industries builds PWRs.

  Each publicly owned utility has chosen one type of reactor.  So Tokyo
Electric Power Co. builds BWRs and Kansai Electric Power Co. (Osaka-Kyoto-
Kobe area) build PWRs.  Other BWR utilities are Chubu, Tohoku, and Chugoku. 
Other PWR utilities are Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku.

  Another point about ECCS actuation in BWRs...they do not run with borated
water (or the stuff would plate out on the fuel rods).  The ECCS system is
borated, so if it does get accuated, the boron would have to be flushed out
before normal operation could be resumed.  This could cause operators to
try other recovery techniques before ECCS is activated. [Note, I have no
knowledge about the actual plant technical specification and procedures
in this area.]

  I would assume the full details will be coming out in the trade journals
in the next few months.  If someone would remind us at that time, we could
post the complete story.

  -steve behling
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.165400.1559@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

<A bunch of hooey deleted>
>          
>               A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray 
>          Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the 

Gee, all Tesla Coils I've seen and built all require a huge amount of
power to run them.


>          cycles per second plus harmonics).  They typically have a 
>          'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the 
>          energy in the coils with the energy being tapped.  It is 

If I recall correctly, the spark gap in a Tesla coil acts to dissipate
the excess charge from the tank circuit.

<more deleted>
>
>               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
>          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.

Got my crystals up on the roof producing me free electricity anytime
the sun's shining.  It WORKS folks, send me money and I'll send you
some CRYSTALS that will allow you too to convert NATURAL solar FUSION
into ELECTRICITY, free.  It doesn't even violate the second law of
thermodynamics.  

Followups directed to alt.dev.null.


-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! NotIU's! #Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! #nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion#family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
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: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:44:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.142535.25731@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.202121.6676@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>
>>> Is it possible that new capacity could be cheaper per GW
>>>while efficiency would be cheaper per kwh? 
>>
>>I don't see how this could be the case if you compare levalized costs 
>>allocated to a prescribed planning period.
>
>Then it would seem that their projection that efficiency will cost
>more than new capacity is a contradiction. 

Let me make a couple of things clear here.  Firstly, the conclusion that 
the demand management part of the plan costs more than the supply part, per
GW, is my own, based on a reading of Ontario Hydro's literature.  I don't
recall any explicit statements of this sort on their part.  Secondly, don't
forget that the numbers I posted of cost/GW were for the entire demand
management component, not just efficiency improvement.  It is plausible that
the non-efficiency part of the DM plan cost consideraly more per unit 
saved, thereby driving the overall cost up.  The literature I have does not
quote a figure for the cost of the efficiency part alone, except for the 
avoided cost estimate of CDN$0.037/kWh.  Without consulting them, I cannot
make conclusions about what this means per avoided GW.

> Do they claim that they
>can beat the Cdn.$.0375/kwh for reclaimed supply from efficiency
>with new capacity?

Just Candu at 80% capacity factor, which is CDN$0.031/kWh (better, obviously,
at higher capacity factors, but 80% is probably a reasonable lifetime 
average).  Based on this, I'd say efficiency is competetive, but not cheaper.
(Demand management as a whole would be less than competetive).

Now, I don't know, of course, what proportion of this reduction through 
efficiency applies to peak load, and what proportion applies to baseload. 
The answer to this would also affect which supply source you compare it to,
possibly making efficiency alone even more competetive.


-- 
Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  
From: borowski@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Don T. Borowski)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:49:45 GMT
Subject: Re: DC->AC
Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa.
Newsgroups: sci.energy

In sci.energy, dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.150121.24115@sol.UVic.CA>, aschoorl@engr.UVic.CA (Andre  Schoorl) 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?
>> 
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andre Schoorl                                    aschoorl@engr.uvic.ca
>> Department of Computer Engineering               e-mail preferred.
>> University of Victoria, Canada

>There are two ways I know of:
>
>1.  For small currents, use a solid state rectifier.  I am not sure how they
>change DC to AC but I feel certain that there are such devices.  
>
>2.  For large currents, use a motor-generator set.  These are common on 
>diesel/electric submarines.  You have a DC motor that turns the shaft for an
>AC generator.  You do loose some energy due to the motor/generator but clearly
>this system would be used when needed and the loss could be less than the
>normal loss from an AC transmition line.  Any electrical engineers wish to
>comment on that last?

The conversion from AC to DC and DC to AC has long been done without rotating
machinery.  The largest scale example in the U.S. is the Pacific Intertie,
which sends power from the Columbia River down to Los Angeles using a DC
transmission line. 

The power is generated using conventional AC generators, and then converted
to DC using large stacks of silicon diodes.  I am not sure of the exact
ratings of these diodes, but I suspect that they are each rating about
1000 to 2000 amps, and 1000 to 1500 volts.  They are arranged in series and
parallel to attain the needed voltage and current levels for power 
transmission.  On the other end, silicon thyristors (SCR's) are used as
switches to convert the DC back to AC.  Again, these devices are rated
about 1000 to 2000 amps, and 1000 to 1500 volts.  And again, stacks of them
are used to be able to handle the voltage and current.  I think the voltage
on the transmission line is on the order of 500 to 750 kV, so probably a
thousand devices in series are needed.

The devices are about the size of hockey pucks, and are conduction cooled
via the flat sides.

Before the solid state devices were available, large mercury vapor rectifiers
and thyratrons were used.  These are large vacuum tubes.

Large scale DC power transmission was difficult
when only rotating machinery was available, as all the DC power needs to flow
through the brushes of the machines, which gets more and more difficult as
the power levels increase.


Donald Borowski    WA6OMI    Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
                                       -G.K. Chesterton
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: DSM for Ontario Hydro (was Re: Radioactivity and Superstition...)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:01:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.164433.26491@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.142535.25731@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct7.202121.6676@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>
>Let me make a couple of things clear here.  Firstly, the conclusion that 
>the demand management part of the plan costs more than the supply part, per
>GW, is my own, based on a reading of Ontario Hydro's literature.  I don't
>recall any explicit statements of this sort on their part.  Secondly, don't
>forget that the numbers I posted of cost/GW were for the entire demand
>management component, not just efficiency improvement.  It is plausible that
>the non-efficiency part of the DM plan cost consideraly more per unit 
>saved, thereby driving the overall cost up.  The literature I have does not
>quote a figure for the cost of the efficiency part alone, except for the 
>avoided cost estimate of CDN$0.037/kWh.  Without consulting them, I cannot
>make conclusions about what this means per avoided GW.
>
>> Do they claim that they
>>can beat the Cdn.$.0375/kwh for reclaimed supply from efficiency
>>with new capacity?
>
>Just Candu at 80% capacity factor, which is CDN$0.031/kWh (better, obviously,
>at higher capacity factors, but 80% is probably a reasonable lifetime 
>average).  Based on this, I'd say efficiency is competetive, but not cheaper.
>(Demand management as a whole would be less than competetive).

Assuming this price is for existing CANDU plants, one question is
whether new plants can match the rate.
>
>Now, I don't know, of course, what proportion of this reduction through 
>efficiency applies to peak load, and what proportion applies to baseload. 
>The answer to this would also affect which supply source you compare it to,
>possibly making efficiency alone even more competetive.
>
This is true.  The EPRI report lists a wide variety of more efficient
technologies and the cost per kwh of energy retrieved for each one as
well as the amount of energy saved for total penetration as a % of
total electricity consumption.  Some are very cheap, some aren't.
Some are baseload, some are peakload.  The more capacity you try to
recapture, the more it costs.  Maybe Ontario Hydro needs to scale
back on the more expensive components, and as you said, maybe the
non-efficiency components to their DSM plan are more expensive.
We don't have enough information to know.
>
>-- 
>Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
>Dept. Engineering Physics
>McMaster University
>Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Electric Car summary
Summary: Your government at work
Keywords: forget it
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:23:47 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

Anyone interested in the state of the art regarding Electric cars should
find this month's issue of SAE's journal, "Automotive Engineering."
Contained within is a detailed summary of each energy storage technology
considered to have viability between now and year 2000 and a summary of
what each car maker is working on.  

Executive summary:  Things still look pretty dismal.  200 km range at
highway speed still seems out of reach of anything near to commercialism.
Californians, spread 'em and get ready.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: AP Wire Story on Japan Reactor 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:01:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Keywords: Nuclear Power, ECCS Systems, Media

In article <1992Oct7.043802.1963@news.iastate.edu> hawk@iastate.edu (John D Hawkinson) writes:
>Sorry for the delay in posting...took awhile to unscramble the AP news article
>sufficiently to write a reply.  

Fine with me.  

An interesting description of what most likely did happen deleted.

If this is even remotely right, then the AP article isn't, as some
have said, analogous to someone using their brakes to avoid an 
accident.  It is more analogous to someone (accidentally) taping 
their brake pedal and triping the 'cruise control' to shut off, 
seeing the speed start to drop, and resetting the cruise control...

i.e. there wasn't even a risk of accident involved, only a risk of
an accidental shutdown of a perfectly fine plant ...

>It might,
>however, be darn smart public relations to make a press release, especially in 
>a nuclear-phobic community).

And especially if the press are going to completely mis-interpret the
meaning of an ECCS trip, that may not have even happened...

More and more I'm coming to think that the word 'Emergency' needs to
be taken out of the cooling descriptions ...

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has