HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: Electric Vehicle
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:13:17 GMT
Reply-To: kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec14.151417.14978@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <Dec11.232412.63015@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kk881595@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu writes:

|> >Bingo.  So lets raise the price of gas to $10/gal and it will
|> >then be economical for us all to drive electric cars. ;?)
|> 
|> No, all that does is cripple most of our transportation system and
|> make it economically infeasible for many of us to operate a car at
|> all, or to buy products transported to us by vehicles.
|> 

I was not being totally serious, but the tax will probably go up
significantly.  If it goes up in steps with plenty of
warning there is no reason that anything needs to be 
crippled.  The mode just needs to change.  For example
electric cars and electric trains.  If we decided that the
airline industry couldn't handle the tax and there was no
alternative then you just wouldn't tax that mode so much and
since the supply would be greater (autos not using it) it
might be cheaper overall.

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
(303)491-8215
kk881595@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 16:13:05 GMT

In article <1go6ntINN8j7@ollie.solbourne.com> dans@solbourne.com (Dan Scott) writes:
>>Also, I would have to add that if the existing solar technology in that 
>>house happens to be phased out, you've got a several hundred thousand 
>>dollar "experiment" on your hands. People buy houses for security, and
>>don't want to have to rebuild it 10-15 years down the line.

>Maybe you could explain how passive solar technology is "phased out"
>making your home less valuable? 


I'll stick to my gas bill (albeit a bit high) than have a roof full of
panels fail with no one around to fix them or replace them.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:39:56 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec12.051606.16825@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>In article <29219@castle.ed.ac.uk: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
>:	Mr Ng also forgot that no-one was claiming a 0.5ng lethal dose,
>:but a 0.5ng harmful dose.
>
>Unfortunately the original article is no longer on my system so I can not
>confirm nor deny this statement.  If I was incorrect, my apologies, my
>personal belief is that the person said lethal.
>
>:This was intended as an indication,not an LD50.
>:The most efficient distribution for particles(from the point of view of
>:killing people) would be a roughly uniform 70 micrograms,IMHO,as the
>:best figure I've been given for a 100% lethal dose is about 1
>:microgram/kg, when inhaled.
>
>Bernard L. Cohen has said that 1 pound will give 2 million cases of lung
>cancer, presuming of course that everyone stands in line and allows 0.2
>milligrams to be inserted into their lungs.  ( 1pound / 2million cancers
>is 0.45 kilogram / 2 million cancers is 450,000 milligram / 2 million cancers
>is 0.45 milligram / 2 cancers is 0.2 milligram per cancer).  Source: The
>Nuclear Energy Option, by Bernard L. Cohen, page 253.  Also note this is
>to get lung cancer, no estimates on the death rates for lung cancer are
>available.  Anyone know?
>

5-yr survival rates for white males as about 12%; 10-yr survival about
7-8%.
From: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: deep sea nuclear waste disposal
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:04:42 EST
Organization: The Heart of Gold BBS, Lemont PA

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

> In article <1992Dec7.212202.26926@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, trh2m@kelvin.sea
> =I remember reading an article a few years ago (late 70's vintage) that
> =proposed dropping vitrified high-level nuclear waste into the deep ocean.
> =To me, this seems to be an inexpensive, ecologically sound, and secure
> =plan for this waste disposal.  Am I missing some possible disadvantage?
> 
> Yeah.  If you dispose of it that way, then once the nucleophobes currently
> massing under the "green" banner cease to be effective in creating hysteria,
> you'll find that you can't get that valuable resource back.

I think you're being a little short in your judgement above, Carl. An 
ocean dumping proposal is based on the assumption of a mature, 4 to 10 
thousand reactor nuclear generation grid. All wastes would have been 
thouroughly reprocessed in conventional storage beforehand. Any wastes 
with reasonable levels of recoverable fissionables would be stored in 
dumps with a more reasonable cost-of-access. I'm not going to go through 
texts to find the figures, but this reprocessing, assuming that numbver 
of reactors, still leaves enough high-level wastes to make vitrification 
and stable clay bed ocean storage an attractive possibility.

This type of storage wouldn't start any time soon. I think a quarter 
century after we reach the four thousand reactor point  is a reasonable 
time estimate. And, during that time, perhaps more efficient reprocessing 
will make it unnecessary.

Note that I'm saying it's only one attractive possibility-- and not one 
that I'd expect would be useful for at least a century. But we're talking 
about running our civilization for the next millenium on nuclear energy. 
Compared to digging into bedrock for underground storage-- after existing 
suitable mines have been filled with wastes-- placing vitrified wastes 
into stable clay beds at depths of 600-1200 feet looks cost-effective, on 
paper.

The folks at the Materials Research Lab at PSU tend to chat a lot about 
vitrification and ocean storage of toxics and wastes.

Later, Bill
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: pwv@tc.fluke.COM (Pat Vilbrandt)
Subject: Re: SOLAR POWERED CAR BATTERY CHARGER - CAN IT WORK?
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:00:15 GMT

In article <1471@eouk17.eoe.co.uk> dhembrow@eoe.co.uk (David Hembrow) writes:
>My question is, how quickly do car batteries self discharge ?

I don't read this group much, but since no one else has answered David's
question yet: lead-acid batteries typically self-discharge at a rate of 
4 to 8% per month over average ambient temperature ranges.  The self-
discharge rate rises to about 15%/mo. at 50 deg. C (122 deg. F), and
to about 70%/mo. at 70 deg. C (158 deg. F).

-- 
   Pat Vilbrandt       John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.        Everett, Washington USA
UUCP: pwv@tc.fluke.COM	or: { uunet, uw-beaver, sun, microsoft }!fluke!pwv
ARPA: fluke!pwv@uw-beaver.ARPA
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:36:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.224558.2802@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>	Well,  one has to add in the fact that local building codes often
> forbid the use of certain styles of construction that would allow very cheap
> passive solar systems.  Remember that many of the good solar-heated designs
> take a holistic perspective and would require a fundamental change in the
> design of a house -- like using an earth berm on one side of the house. 


The problem with radical solutions like this is that more conservative
solutions are nearly as good.

At a recent home show here in Rochester, one of the 6 houses displayed
was a 1700 sq. ft. "environmentally friendly" house.  It did not look
very different from a conventional house.  If you looked closely, you
would notice that the exterior walls are thicker, and maybe there were
a few more windows on the south side (not that that helps much in
Rochester...).

The builders of this house promise (in writing) that it will cost no
more than $200/winter to heat.  That's not bad in Rochester, where gas
is fairly expensive (> 3 times the current spot market wholesale
price) and the climate is brisk.

Sure, maybe a geodesic/earth-covered/solar-festooned superhouse would
use (say) $100/season.  But it's hardly worth it.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: whose afraid of nucle
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 04:43:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.4266.12013@dosgate> "barry ross" <barry.ross@canrem.com> writes:
> I go with empirical data, thank you, particularly when  my 
>life depends upon it.

Barry, you're trying to tell me that putting the wastes in the center of
several thousand-square-mile WEAPONS TESTING site, 3000 miles from where
you're sitting now, will take your life? Go crawl back under your bed.
It's safer there.

>I still maintain that the smart fifth generation robotic  comput-
>ers  will  save the day.

Huh? Please explain.

>I am not saying do  not  stabilize  the 
>atomic  waste and put it in vaults (old mines) but keep them  dry 
>and  have access to maintain their lack of access to  ground  wa-
>tes.
 
The site is dry. Has been dry for millions of years. Will stay dry.

>Today  all  waste is held in pools at  each  generating  facility 
>basically,  to the best of my knowledge, because there is no  ap-
>proved  disposal method. 

Not approved in the U.S., you mean. Are we going to start the political
thread again? If so, please look at other countries first for some
background.

>They have found great  increases 
>in  cancer over the average population many years down  the  road 
>with low levels of radiation. Also levels of radio active stront-
>ium  in  grass  immediately outside the power plants  is  ten  to 
>twelve  times  the value that they thought  was  acceptable.   So 
>radio active vapours are getting out of the power plants. 

Please cite your sources. This is SCI.energy, not alt.save.the.earth.
Would you like for me to tell you how much radiation is released by
COAL plants? (hint: it's more)

> Conserva-
>tion  and utilization of our existing resources of sun, wind  and 
>water  is where the bulk of our research funds should  be  going.  

Please show how any of these will create clean base load power, for which
nuclear is the best around. This is sci.ENERGY, not alt.save.the.earth.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:23:34 GMT
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.energy

>Also, I would have to add that if the existing solar technology in that 
>house happens to be phased out, you've got a several hundred thousand 
>dollar "experiment" on your hands. People buy houses for security, and
>don't want to have to rebuild it 10-15 years down the line.
>
>Tino

From my limited readings on the subject, it appears that most passive
solar solutions are fairly straighforward ones:  direct gain, Trombe
walls, sunspaces.  These systems have few, if any, moving parts, and
should easily last 50 years before needing major repairs.  They are
built out of ordinary construction materials like glass and concrete,
which won't be "phased out" anytime soon.

The problem seems to be getting stuck with an expensive *architectural*
experiment on your hands.  The books I've read make it sound like
people will be knocking down your doors in order to buy your solar
house.  I think not.  Let's face it, a Trombe wall is not going to
"blend in" anywhere.  A house incorporating sunspaces and direct gain
approaches shows the most promise, in my opinion, of being accepted
as a "normal" house.  But I'm certainly no architect.
Any comments? references?

I think the challenge is to be able to tell people that your furnace
only turned on twice last year, and have them respond with "Oh, the
solar arrays must be out back."
From: morrison@cs.uiuc.edu (Vance Morrison)
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 15:22:10 GMT


I realise that this thread has probably been beaten to death, but I 
just wanted to point out two possibilities that have not been discussed
and it would seem have MAJOR bearing on the problem.

First is the question of flywheel particles hitting the housing.
It seems that most of the discussion has assumed that the particles
hit head on.  It seems to me that this may not be the case, and can
be a significant factor.  If the housing was very close to the flywheel
when the flywheel disintegrates each particle would stop it circular
motion and start moving in a straight line.  If the housing was close
to the flywheel, this would mean that the particles do not hit the
housing straight on but at a very shallow angle.   As such it is quite
possible that FAR less force is needed to deflect the particles  (basically
as much force as was needed to hold the flywheel together in the first
place).   Thus it MIGHT be possible to contain the particles in a 
swirling plasma inside a container for a relatively long period of time
(milliseconds to seconds).  Eventually the housing would get so hot that
it would fail, but the worst of the kinetic energy might have been turned
to heat by that time.   It was just a thought.

The other concern I have is conservation of angular momentum.  If
the above scenerio happens, all the angular momentum of the flywheel 
would be transfered to the container walls.  This is a LOT of 
angular momentum, undoubtedly enough cause the housing and even
the car itself to start rotating which is quite undesirable.   Since
angular momentum goes up as V and energy as V^2, dissapating the momentum may
not be a SERIOUS problem, but it certainly deserves some careful 
consideration.

Vance
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:43:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: sugra.1992Dec12.044341.16500
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa, NJ

In article <51588@seismo.CSS.GOV: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
:In article<1992Dec5.045552.1667@sugra.uucp>,ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
:> I did the original calculations, VERY rough I admit, but if anyone wants
:> to recalc better numbers, be my guest.  I presumed the nuke blast would
:> create 0.5 nanogram particles and that the particules would reach a uniform
:> distribution over the earth.  I did forget to take into account that the
:> earth is 2/3 water.  So instead of 3 square feet to find a particle, you
:> need to traverse 9 square feet.  I really suspect a lethality of 0.5 nanogram
:> is really unrealistic.
:You also neglected to include the fact that the atmosphere is three-dimensional
:So your particles are found in a volume 9feet square by about 20 miles high.

The atmospheric bomb tests were mostly in the 1950's, and except for I think
China and France, there have been none in the past 20 years.  Plutonium is
heavier than air, and therefore tbey will make the sphere become rather flat
quite quickly.  Maybe they could be 20 or even 100 miles up in the atmosphere,
eventually they either leave the earth or they come back down.  Since they
are a lot heavier than nitrogen and oxygen, I contend that most will come
back down.

:In addition, such particles rapidly leave the atmosphere.

Gee, even you don't believe the 20 mile thick sphere eh?

:  water condenses
:around them and they fall as precipitation, the majority of which occurs
:over oceans.

The presumation I made was land and ocean have an equal probablity of having
the plutonium particle land.  I suspect that most of the rain comes down on
the mountains alongside of oceans.  This would make my estimate conservative.
Does anyone know for sure?

: Anyway, all this shows is that your example is a poor one
:for evaluating the lethality of Pu.

I was not evaluating the lethality of plutonium.  In an article that is no
longer on my local system, a poster had said that the max dosage of plutonium
per person is 0.5 nano gram.  I just calculated how much area one would
have to traverse to find such a particle.  This does not take into account
thousands of factors like gausian atmospheric particle dispersion, the 
average size of particles coming from atomic bomb blasts.  Personally I
suspect the particles are almost individual molecules, but I have found
no data.  I'm not even sure what I would look it up under.  I did presume
that the particles would go all over the world.  Since at least a fair
amount of the material would go into the stratosphere, I think that is
a fair assumption.

By the way, my correction of 9 square feet is not correct.  It really is
three square feet.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@eies2.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: deep sea nuclear waste disposal
Date: 14 Dec 1992 02:29:47 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 <1992Dec7.212202.26926@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, trh2m@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Thomas Richard Hubbard) writes:
=I remember reading an article a few years ago (late 70's vintage) that
=proposed dropping vitrified high-level nuclear waste into the deep ocean.
=To me, this seems to be an inexpensive, ecologically sound, and secure
=plan for this waste disposal.  Am I missing some possible disadvantage?

Yeah.  If you dispose of it that way, then once the nucleophobes currently
massing under the "green" banner cease to be effective in creating hysteria,
you'll find that you can't get that valuable resource back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: passive solar: fact or fiction
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:45:58 GMT

In article <7520009@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:
>
>So, what's the story?
>
>(1) - These guys are liars, and are just trying to drum up business by
>      publishing this book.
>
>(2) - Builders won't risk building solar homes because there's a good
>      chance that they won't sell.
>
>(3) - People don't want solar homes because they are ugly.
>
>(4) - Other.  Please specify.

>I suspect that a passive solar home really does cost more, and that
>item (3) is a BIG issue (hence item (2) follows as a corollary).
>--

	Well,  one has to add in the fact that local building codes often
forbid the use of certain styles of construction that would allow very cheap
passive solar systems.  Remember that many of the good solar-heated designs
take a holistic perspective and would require a fundamental change in the
design of a house -- like using an earth berm on one side of the house.  I
don't think that passive solar design would necessarily add that much to the
cost of a house,  but I seem to recall that the main cost in building a house
is labor.  My father built a 40x20 house himself (not solar) for about
$10,000 in materials in 1973.  We've had quite a bit of inflation since then,
so if we add 3 for a fudge factor,  we get a material costs of $30,000 for
a "typical" non-solar home.  Since homes tend to sell for much more than that,
we really have to look at the labor cost involved.

	So I would say that the answer is mostly between 2,3 and 4 (building
codes).  Probably a little bit of 1,  but I wouldn't say that the people
are liars,  just a little bit over-enthusiastic,  and they might fudge a
little here and there.



--
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:34:54 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BzIIoy.4Gp@cs.uiuc.edu> morrison@cs.uiuc.edu (Vance Morrison) writes:


|motion and start moving in a straight line.  If the housing was close
|to the flywheel, this would mean that the particles do not hit the
|housing straight on but at a very shallow angle.   As such it is quite
|possible that FAR less force is needed to deflect the particles

Each collision will have less force, but there will also be more collisions.

|The other concern I have is conservation of angular momentum.  If
|the above scenerio happens, all the angular momentum of the flywheel 
|would be transfered to the container walls.  This is a LOT of 
|angular momentum, undoubtedly enough cause the housing and even
|the car itself to start rotating which is quite undesirable.   Since
|angular momentum goes up as V and energy as V^2, dissapating the momentum may
|not be a SERIOUS problem, but it certainly deserves some careful 
|consideration.

Hadn't considered that angle before.  Shudder.
-- 
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
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Electric Cars - Help need
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:47:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 

TJC>Can anyone please suggest where I might be able to find some articles
TJC>on Electric Vehicles and their efficiency in particular. I have read
TJC>the articles in IEEE Spectrum but am after more details.

Try the Electric Auto Association. They have a bi-monthly newsletter
which includes a list of publications.

Send a SASE to

Electrical Auto Association
2710 St. Giles Lane
Mountain View, CA, 94040
USA

Tel: (800)-537-2882 (USA only)
Tel: (408)371-5969
Fax: (408)371-5978

There is also a magazine called "Alternative Transportation News", but I
know not the address. There are others that your library reference desk
might be able to find.

Also you might ask to join the Electric Vehicle Discussion List at
<EV%SJSUVM1.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>.

hhs
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . hAS ANYONE SEEN MY cAPSLOCK KEY?
                                                                                 
Newsgroups: sci.energy