HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elson@otc.otca.oz.au (Elson Markwick)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Flywheel batteries as EV power source
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:03:15 GMT
Organization: R&D, OTC Sydney, Australia

In article <51711@seismo.CSS.GOV>, stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> In article <7003@otc.otca.oz>, elson@otc.otca.oz.au (Elson Markwick) writes:
> > energy.  Why not tap that and use it for recharging the flywheel?
> 
> Good post overall.  But I would answer your question with another -
> Why not tap the energy and use it recharging a battery?
> Batteries are well-characterized, very safe and stable; and they are
> off-the-shelf technology.  They will probably beat a flywheel pound-for-pound
> in storage capacity, once flywheel shielding is taken into account.  They
> suffer leakage current losses, but those are much less than the Q losses
> for a flywheel.  And they will not introduce torque stresses onto the vehicle
> frame on every turn (flywheels will, even if mounted with opposing spins
> so that the vehicle as a whole is not spun).

That's a fair question, but in the case of simply using the flywheel as a small
reservoir to help supply peak loads for short periods, the flywheel won't have to
contain anywhere near so much energy (I think I calculated that to accelerate a
1500 kg vehicle to 160 kph (100mph) is only of the order of a megajoule), meaning
the flywheel would be under much lower stress, (less likely to fail), and because
the energy is lower, the containment would be corrospondingly lighter.  Now I
know that a battery to do the same job would also be corrospondingly lighter, but 
there are some disadvantages.  The two big ones I can come up with off the top of
my head are limited number of discharge/recharge cycles, and the disposal
problems once their working life is over.  My gut reaction (which may be wrong)
is that a low stress flywheel (such as one containing only 2-3 megajoules) could
be constructed to last indefinitely.  Obviously as battery technology improves, 
batteries will see an increase in working life span, but I think (once again, I
could be wrong) a low energy flywheel could be constructed today.

The other problem (about the gyro effects of a flywheel) could be negated by
mounting a single wheel with a vertical axis of rotation (ie the wheel spins in 
the horizontal plane).  Then you only get a gyro effect when you attempt to
change the pitch of the vehicle.  The only major changes in vehicle pitch would
be up or down hills, and I'm sure flexible mounts could easily take care of that.

BTW, sorry about the delay answering this - our news feed gets real slow (like
more than a week slow) from time to time.

> Richard Stead

Cheers, Elson
-- 
Elson Markwick |ACSnet:  elson@otc.otca.oz.au
OTC R & D Unit |UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!elson
Ph: 02 287 3142|Internet: elson%otc.otca.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
Fax:02 287 3299|Snail:  GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, Australia
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Wind Energy Weekly
Date: 4 Jan 93 08:54:00 GMT
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193

PG&E APPLIES FOR PERMIT

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) has submitted an application to
Solano (Calif.) County for a permit to build a demonstration wind
power plant.

The utility proposes building a test site for up to 20 turbines on
land it owns in the county.  The project will be used to test up to
four different types of advanced wind turbines.  The goal,
according to PG&E engineer Bill Steeley, is to examine near-
commercial technologies under field conditions so that PG&E can aid
development of the technology.

The turbines will range in size from 200 kW to 500 kW, and PG&E
will consider both domestic and foreign designs for installation in
the mid-1990s. The giant electric utility is currently revising its
permit application, Steeley said.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . 
                                                                                                                    
----
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: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:31:02 GMT

In article <C0G5tF.IBB@encore.com>, wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
> So why should I believe Turkey Point is that much better designed than
> Homestead AFB?

Because the design is publicly reviewed, and cross-examined repeatedly
in hearings.  Because "watchdog" groups file suits over virtually every
aspect of plant construction.  Because all design concepts are given
full-scale tests before the real thing is built.  None of this is true
of Homestead.  I saw "before" pictures of Homestead.  How can corrugated
metal be considered hurricane proof?  A saw no significant masses of
concrete in any of those structures.  The "after" pictures show that the
structures did not have foundations.  There exists no information to back
up the claim of hurricane proof for those structures, regardless of who
makes the claims (media, base personnel, commanders, whoever).  And I
can pretty much claim there is no information along these lines - you won't
faind any evidence that any claim for hurricane proof on the Homestead
structures was ever tested.

However, I have read about and even seen films of actual testing they do
on nuke plants.  I have had some small personal involvement in considerations
of "earthquake proof" for nukes (no, I am not at liberty to discuss it).
One film really sticks in my mind (not because of the proof of nuke
permanence, but rather the experimental setup).  They tested the containment
structure design against projectiles.  They built a full-scale segment of
the concrete structure, then developed a gun that could fire lead pipes
and telephone poles, etc, at 300 mph.  They then shot these things at
the wall and filmed the results slow-mo.  The wall wasn't even scratched,
let alone ruptured, but the telephone poles and things destroyed them
selves quite nicely.  It takes a tornado to fling a telephone pole
anywhere near those speeds, so the containment is tornado-proof, let alone
a mere hurricane.  (Building test cases like this explains part of why
nuke construction is so expensive.  But I kinda like the idea of a
telephone pole gun, even without the nukes.)


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind Energy Weekly
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:55:31 GMT

In article <5241.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com>, howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
> Generation of 2,000 kWh/kW is representative of the performance of
> a well-sited wind plant in California.  Better-performing turbines
> both in California and on the West Cost of Denmark's Jutland
> peninsula can produce up to 3,000 kWh/kW of installed capacity.
> However, average performance both in California and in Denmark
> typically falls below 2,000 kWh/kW.

This paragraph begs the question - what is the definition of "well-sited"?
Is it a site that generates 2,000 kWh/kW?  Just had to ask.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Keywords: energy environment press
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:53:18 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

More Greenpeace bullshit. Care to figure the costs in health and
environmental damage of all the fossil fuel plants in the US?
That is, from the ongoing release of millions of tons of CO2, thousands
of curies of low-level radioactives and tons of lead and cadmium as 
contaminants in the coal? The 100,000 tons of nuclear waste generated 
so far by commercial nuclear plants sounds like a lot, until you realize
that this would not quite fill ONE coal train.

Our grandchildren will hate us for not retiring carbon fueled
power plants as fast as possible. The only feasible alternative
is nuclear, as the French, Japanese and Koreans understand and as
their extensive experience demonstrates. We owe it to the Earth,
our fellow life-forms and our descendants to use clean nuclear
energy, even if it is more expensive than fossil fuels.


Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Richard has a gripe (was Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:27:03 GMT

In article <STEINLY.93Jan11152710@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.221055.12931@michael.apple.com> ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>   I can say it is by definition since I see it as a question of looking
>   at a large sample space (ALL the economy) and looking for the (mean/
>   modal point).  You see it as being some issue of pre-defining 'mean'
>   as 'profitably and easily converted'.  That is your problem, not mine.
>   When you ask me to clarify MY position, please do not pre-suppose 
>   that I must do so in the context of YOUR pre-conceptions of it.
>
>Not adequate: consider this postulated distribution of costs vs
>frequency for energy sources in the community.
>
>
>     f
>	|
>	|
>	| 				*
>	|			       *
>	|*			      *
>	| *			     *
>	|  *			    *
>	|   *			   *
>	|    *			  *
>	|	*		*
>	|	  *	      *
>	|	    * *	    *
>	|		***
>	|
>	|____________________________________ $$$
>
>Neither the mean nor the mode have the properties you desire,
>and I contend this is a not unreasonable model of reality...
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Help save the youth of America				*
>*  Help save them from themselves   				*
>*  Help save the sun-tanned surfer boys				*
>*  And the California Girls					*
>*  				- BB 1986			*
>

There is a lot of speculation going around here about financing these
improvements, but not many actual numbers.  I assume that Steinn's
frequency axis above means contribution to consumption for the
technology whose cost for replacement is on the horizontal axis.

The cheapest replacements are for residential and commercial
lighting, and their "frequency" is modest, though not trivial.
The single component with the highest frequency has a moderate
cost.  

What I fail to see is why Steinn thinks the relationship
of these two figures would produce a curve that fits any continuous
model, be it exponential or a polynomial.  There is no coherence
between different technologies and their related costs and uses.
I will examine the EPRI report, which provides these very numbers,
and report back.


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:58:03 GMT

In article <51761@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.190241.9405@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> In article <m0wrqwh@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>> >my case because I consider the whole issue to be at best, based on ignorance
>> >and at worst, based on intellectual fraud.
>> 
>
>Anyway, I have no trouble with John's attitude about science here - I do
>have trouble with the attitude of groups like Greenpeace about science.
>As a scientist, I take personal offense at a lot of their wild ravings
>about science.
>
Look at John's sentence above.  He says "the whole issue". He doesn't
say the treatment of the issue by a particular group.  His statement
_clearly_ includes scientific investigators of the issue.  John's
statement seems as much a wild raving as anything I have seen
from Greenpeace.  

I am not going to debate your various points Richard.  From my knowledge, 
some of them seem valid, but I am not familiar with each one and there are
others in sci.environment far more qualified than I on this issue.
Maybe Tobis or Halliwell could jump in because some of those points
are of interest to me, also.

For those who would like an overview of the issue from the point of
view of climatologists, I would recommend the 5-22-92 issue of
_Science_, which contains an article called "Greenhouse Science
Survives the Skeptics."
>
>--
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>stead@seismo.css.gov


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: True Costs of French Commercial Nuclear Power
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:02:29 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan11.064108.23373@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <58508@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>In article <schumach.726537198@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>>Our grandchildren will hate us for not retiring carbon fueled
>>>power plants as fast as possible. The only feasible alternative
>>>is nuclear, as the French, Japanese and Koreans understand and as
>>>their extensive experience demonstrates. We owe it to the Earth,
>>
>>Got a reference to back this up? The French have a working nuclear industry,
>>but the costs, economic and environmental are not obvious. For example,
>>how much money have the french sunk into their non-functioning breeder
>>reactors? Are there leaks at the Cape Breton reprocessing plant? 
>>How can you judge the sucess of the French nuclear industry without
>>knowing these?
>
>Yes, I do, and here's some facts:
>
>Currently, 75% of the electricity generation in France is nuclear with 56
>active reactors.
>
>In 1991, France (or EdF, the company that runs the show) EXPORTED 53.4 TWh
>of electricity, a 17% gain from 1990, for a turnover of 12 billion francs.
>Because of this, EdF was the seventh largest French exporter in 1990, and
>has probably moved up even higher. Their three largest consumers were the

...
You don't answer my questions. How much was invested? What's the return
on equity? What evidence leads one to believe that the French government
is getting a good return on the public's investment? I know that they
generate power, and I'm prepared to believe that they export it. What's
the *cost* though?

>UK, Italy, and Switzerland. [Tino's note: Italy is paying through the nose

Is there a high power transmission cable accross the English Channel?

>for shutting down its plants] Germany has also begun to import large 
>amounts of electricity (5.5 TWh in 1991).

Replacing the East German suicidal power system, I guess.

>A law concerning research on long-life radioactive waste management was
>promulgated on 30 December 1991.
>
>(source: "Le programme electronucleaire francais au 1er janvier 1992" by
>the Commissariat d'Energie Atomique)

Sure to give an even handed treatment, no?

>Having worked at a CEA research facility last year, I will gladly 
>entertain any of your other questions, Victor, to the best of my knowledge.
>Rumors of "leaks at a reprocessing plant" are out of my domain, unless I
>can track down a source for the info.

I'll look around. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: aa139@Freenet.carleton.ca (Mike Lynch)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:40:28 GMT


I have been following this debate with some interest.  Over the course
of the last fifteen years or so I have done many studies on the cost
of nuclear power, availability, lifetimes, etc.  Some of these studies
were done while I was employed with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in
support of electricity exports from generation capacity be it nuclear, 
hydro, coal or a mix..whatever.  I have also calculated the cost of
nuclear power albeit the CANDU for submission to UNIPEDE which attempts
perhaps erroneously to compare the cost of nuclear and coal in Europoe
and North America.

To claim a capital cost of $1000/kw is extremely optimistic...perhaps
even fanciful. In today's dollars foir an LWR or a CANDU (excluding 
heavy water) a capital cost of $2000/kw may be fair.

Further construction lead times are a bit lomnger than six years. Interest
during construction works against nuclear power when compared wuith
other plants such as coal due to the heavy front end investment.  Lead
times to construct nuclear power plants are in practice considerably longer than six years. For that matter it takes just as long to site new transmission
lines.  I would assume a construction lead time of eigfht years.  (sorry
about the spelling, I have yet to learn how to set up my machine for
proper editing).

Availability:  Load factors in the U.S. avearge around 65%. Refer to NERC
documentation. Operating capacity factors for LWRs averages around 65%.
For CANDUs operating capacity factors (all plants included ) are around 75%.
Operating performance of Darlington and problems with pressdure tubes in
the other reactors will depress lifetime opearting factors further.

Lifetimes: 40 years seems reasonable, but we do not yet have the actual 
experience to confirm whether this is a reasonable assumption.  Thirty years was
used for accoutnig /financial reasons.

Despite the above, and I am sure EPRI woiuld agree, it is the mix of 
generaation options and denmand supply management techniques that are
important.  IUn the U.S. some sixty percvent of fossil fired and nuclear
power capacity was constructed over the period 1966 to 1976.  Assuming a forty
year lifetine and some homogenity...again sorry for the spelling...the 
U.S. faces a situation of block obsolescence in its bulk power system
over the period 2006 to 200200...2016. Considering lead times
of at least ten years (green field site requirements included, and ten years
would be optimistic), action to deal with the block obsolescence problem
will have to be made over the period 1996 to 2006.  That's a mighty order
when one considers the financial implications for U.S. utilities who 
have decidedly shifted away from long term commitments.

-- 
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: True Costs of French
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:23:12 GMT

In article <5408.1017.uupcb@spacebbs.com> howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) writes:
>Gee!, with all that surplus power, why are they building a large wind
>farm at Dunkirk?

Electricity Generated in France in 1991
---------------------------------------
Type                                   Values          

Conventional Thermal Generation       57.5 TWh
Nuclear Thermal Generation           314.9 TWh
Hydro Generation                      60.9 TWh

Total Generation                     433.3 TWh

Export Balance                        53.4 TWh

Domestic Consumption                 374.5 TWh


Is EdF building the wind farm? The report I have is mainly dedicated to
the nuclear power program.

Also, it is very profitable to sell excess electricity to someone else,
because you are allowed to charge more for it.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:47:25 GMT

In article <C0G42F.Hq2@encore.com> wcarroll@encore.com (William Carroll) writes:
>
>I do not know how USAF "hurricane-proof" specs compare with NRC "hurricane-
>proof" specs, but I doubt they vary by a factor of two or three. I'll
>repeat what I said: FPL was very lucky to escape Andrew with as little
>damage to Turkey point as they sustained.

One of the design basis criteria for containment is being able to withstand
a power dive crash of a fully loaded 747 into the containment structure
without breach. Now hurricanes are massively powerful storms, but they
can't even vaguely approach that degree of point force. No sheetmetal
and steel frame hanger, or wood framed housing compares even vaguely to
the many feet of steel reinforced concrete of a containment structure.
You'd come closer if you compared it to Saddam's Bunker or Cheyenne
Mountain.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.energy