Subject: Co-Generation for Residential use

From: [email-masked] (Mike Barney)
Date: 5 Aug 1996 22:39:04 -0700

Can anyone provide a pointer to a small co-generator (natural gas to
electricity) for residential use, in the 8 - 15 KW range. 

Thanks in advance,

mike barney
[email-masked]

"...thats' "see zero dot com, -not-  see oh dot com"

---

From: [email-masked] (Dave Wood)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 96 21:32:38 GMT

>"...thats' "see zero dot com, -not-  see oh dot com"

I don't have a lead to a natural gas powered generator but for
discussions' sake.....
	Several years ago, a newspaper article in the San Diego
Union profiled a local, start-up company that was developing a
a natural gas powered generator with the intention of using it
for generating electricity and using the heated coolant to supply
heat for the home. The set-up was claimed to fit in an insulated
, refrigerator sized box and was supposed to be economical for
a 4 unit apartment building.
	As far as I know, it never went to market.
Has anyone heard of this or something similar?

-Dave

---

From: JJP <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Aug 1996 03:43:01 GMT

>Here's the name and address of the company.  Keep in mind that they
>might be out of business.
>
>micro cogen Inc.
>1335 Midway Dr.
>Alpine, California 92001
>619.445.3563
>619.445.0505 fax
>Craig Linden : President
>
>Is Alpine close to San Diego?
>
>I have the brochure 1991 circa. if interested will photocopy and
>forward.
>
>John 
>Mid Michigan

I worked for San Diego Gas & Electric for a period of time when Micro Cogen was 
selling their wares ... they missed their calling, they really should have 
been in the used car business.  

The capital cost per kW was prohibitively expensive for the unit to be 
economic.  Their favorite ploy was to state that the unit was something like 
95% efficient, compared to the terrible 38% efficiency of SDG&E power plants.  
They didn't mention that their units were actually only had an electrical 
efficiency in the mid 20%'s and the rest of their 'efficiency' was the btu 
content of the cooling water, which could be used as a low temperature hot 
water source but it has little value in residential use, especially if you have 
gas hot water heating (unless you had a swimming pool).  They usually use it as 
a pre-heater for a hot water heater.

Eventually the market caught on to the fact that electrical efficiency and the 
btu content of the cooling water have very very different values and the 
combined 'btu efficiency' measure was absolutely meaningless.  I believe they 
have since gone out of business, but I'm not sure of this.

My two cents worth in regards to operating a home on an energy efficient basis 
is this ... buy a home that meets the California Energy Code (or similarly 
stringent Codes), make sure that you get a natural gas home (or propane if NG 
isn't available), get a mid to high efficiency furnace and water heater, use 
gas for cooking and for the dryer, get truly well sealed ducts and change your 
furnace filter every three months, use compact fluorescents in any well-used 
light socket and put photocells on your outdoor lights if you use them at 
night.  Call your utility and try to get a home audit or at least a self-audit.  
If you're still concerned hire a home inspector for advice.

Be skeptical.  The energy efficiency industry is full of con artists and those 
whose enthusiasm cloud their judgement.

(P.S.  Alpine is about 20 miles east of San Diego).

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 7 Aug 1996 08:00:17 -0400

JJP  <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I worked for San Diego Gas & Electric for a period of time when Micro Cogen
>was selling their wares... they missed their calling, they really should have 

The other alternative being the Better Mousetrap theory of marketing? :-)

>economic.

How much did it cost? How many kW did it make, including the heat output? 

>Their favorite ploy was to state that the unit was something like 

That seems honest to me, with a footnote, if the house can use the "waste
heat," ie the other 2/3 of the output :-), vs the usually wasted 4/5+ of a
PV panel's heat--we don't seem very interested yet in PV "cogeneration,"
using cells that work well at high temps, eg amorphous Si...

>water source but it has little value in residential use, especially if you
>have gas hot water heating (unless you had a swimming pool).

I'm surprised they didn't raise the temp of this heat output, or try to
sell the system in some colder place than San Diego, where people need
to heat their houses. 
 
>combined 'btu efficiency' measure was absolutely meaningless.

I wouldn't say that at all. You seem very confused about this. If the heat
output usually preheated domestic hot water, as you say, rather than just
going up a cooling tower, it was well-used in the house, and should be
counted in such an efficiency. That's the whole point of cogeneration.

>I believe they have since gone out of business, but I'm not sure of this.

Perhaps your utility helped this process along. 

The concept makes a lot of sense to me, and I think we will soon see a few
good gas cogen units on the market from companies like Yorke and Intelligen.
The fact that Micro didn't work out, perhaps with the aid of your confusion
and misinformation, does not mean that similar systems won't succeed.

>stringent Codes)...

Sounds like a good start. One with a big blank south facing wall, facing
away from the street, perhaps. And then add on a large and simple sunspace
for house heating, if needed, with a few PVs inside that also make hot water.

Nick

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Borowski)
Date: 7 Aug 1996 18:02:05 GMT

Nick Pine ([email-masked]) wrote:
: JJP  <[email-masked]> wrote:

: >I worked for San Diego Gas & Electric for a period of time when Micro Cogen
: >was selling their wares... they missed their calling, they really should have 
: >been in the used car business.  

: The other alternative being the Better Mousetrap theory of marketing? :-)

: >The capital cost per kW was prohibitively expensive for the unit to be 
: >economic.

: How much did it cost? How many kW did it make, including the heat output? 

: >Their favorite ploy was to state that the unit was something like 
: >95% efficient, compared to the terrible 38% efficiency of SDG&E power plants.  

: That seems honest to me, with a footnote, if the house can use the "waste
: heat," ie the other 2/3 of the output :-), vs the usually wasted 4/5+ of a
: PV panel's heat--we don't seem very interested yet in PV "cogeneration,"
: using cells that work well at high temps, eg amorphous Si...

: >They didn't mention that their units were actually only had an electrical 
: >efficiency in the mid 20%'s and the rest of their 'efficiency' was the btu 
: >content of the cooling water, which could be used as a low temperature hot 
: >water source but it has little value in residential use, especially if you
: >have gas hot water heating (unless you had a swimming pool).

: I'm surprised they didn't raise the temp of this heat output, or try to
: sell the system in some colder place than San Diego, where people need
: to heat their houses. 
:  
: >Eventually the market caught on to the fact that electrical efficiency and the 
: >btu content of the cooling water have very very different values and the 
: >combined 'btu efficiency' measure was absolutely meaningless.

: I wouldn't say that at all. You seem very confused about this. If the heat
: output usually preheated domestic hot water, as you say, rather than just
: going up a cooling tower, it was well-used in the house, and should be
: counted in such an efficiency. That's the whole point of cogeneration.

But if you have have a lot of "waste" heat, and no use for it, it DOESN'T
count in the efficiency.  That's way the comment was made that such a
system would make more sense for someone in colder climates where there
is more use for the heat left after generating the electricity.  And
a system which can provide fully heated domestic hot water makes more
use of waste heat and replaces the capital and operating cost of a
seperate water heater.

: >I believe they have since gone out of business, but I'm not sure of this.

: Perhaps your utility helped this process along. 

If they utility helped this process by providing more economical sources
of heat and power, then it was a good thing.

: The concept makes a lot of sense to me, and I think we will soon see a few
: good gas cogen units on the market from companies like Yorke and Intelligen.
: The fact that Micro didn't work out, perhaps with the aid of your confusion
: and misinformation, does not mean that similar systems won't succeed.

I didn't see this confusion and misinformation.

: >My two cents worth in regards to operating a home on an energy efficient basis 
: >is this ... buy a home that meets the California Energy Code (or similarly 
: >stringent Codes)...

: Sounds like a good start. One with a big blank south facing wall, facing
: away from the street, perhaps. And then add on a large and simple sunspace
: for house heating, if needed, with a few PVs inside that also make hot water.

It certainly is a good start.  Anything beyond that, as you suggest,
should be evaluated against the economics.

I believe in efficiency and energy conservation.  But it is not the end
to be had regardless of other costs.  If big, heavy, and expensive equipment
is needed to save or produce small amounts of energy, then it doesn't
make sense to do it.

I think of the airline industry many decades ago making the switch to
jet aircraft.  They weren't very fuel efficient compared to 
piston aircraft.  But they could fly so much faster, and produce more
revenue per day, that the additional fuel costs were easily outweighed
by the more efficient use of capital and labor.

Donald Borowski    WA6OMI    Hewlett-Packard, Spokane Division
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
                                       -G.K. Chesterton

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 8 Aug 1996 12:19:12 -0400

>: How much did it cost? How many kW did it make, including the heat output? 

No answer yet...

:Their favorite ploy was to state that the unit was something like 95%
:efficient, compared to the terrible 38% efficiency of SDG&E power plants.  

  That still seems quite honest to me...
  
: >water source...
 
>: ...the combined 'btu efficiency' measure was absolutely meaningless.

This line above is bullshit. And it's the whole point of cogen,
which the original poster does not seem to understand at all.

>count in the efficiency.

It does if it's used to preheat water.

>That's way the comment was made that such a
>is more use for the heat left after generating the electricity.

Mebbie, mebbie not. It may be a lot easier to preheat water than a house,
with a tiny liquid-liquid heat exchanger, especially with a water cooled
engine. 

>And a system which can provide fully heated domestic hot water makes more
>use of waste heat

Bullshit.

>and replaces the capital and operating cost of a seperate water heater.

True, but that has nothing to do with whether the "waste heat" should
be included in the efficiency calculation. Why do I argue about technical
things with people who can't spell? :-)

>I didn't see this confusion and misinformation.

Obviously.

>is needed to save or produce small amounts of energy, then it doesn't

I agree completely. Photovoltaics cost about $5/peak Watt, and 100%
solar house heating can cost about 5 cents/peak Watt... I wonder why
so many people who live in cold places are in love with photovoltaics,
and still use oil burners in their basements?
 
Nick

It's a snap to save energy in this country. As soon as more people become
involved in the basic math of heat transfer and get a gut-level, as well as
intellectual, grasp on how a house works, solution after solution will appear.

					  Tom Smith

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Borowski)
Date: 8 Aug 1996 19:08:03 GMT

Nick Pine ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Don Borowski <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >Nick Pine ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >: JJP  <[email-masked]> wrote:
:  
: >: How much did it cost? How many kW did it make, including the heat output? 

: No answer yet...

: :Their favorite ploy was to state that the unit was something like 95%
: :efficient, compared to the terrible 38% efficiency of SDG&E power plants.  

:   That still seems quite honest to me...
:   
: : >They didn't mention that their units were actually only had an electrical 
: : >efficiency in the mid 20%'s and the rest of their 'efficiency' was the btu 
: : >content of the cooling water, which could be used as a low temperature hot 
: : >water source...
:  
: >: ...the combined 'btu efficiency' measure was absolutely meaningless.

: This line above is bullshit. And it's the whole point of cogen,
: which the original poster does not seem to understand at all.

None of the above is my comments.  They start on the next line.

: >But if you have have a lot of "waste" heat, and no use for it, it DOESN'T
: >count in the efficiency.

: It does if it's used to preheat water.

Let me say it again, if you have no use for the waste heat, that is, if
you have preheated the water as much as the system can, you have to throw
away the rest of the heat.  This heat is lost, and the system efficiency
is lowered.

: >That's way the comment was made that such a
: >system would make more sense for someone in colder climates where there
: >is more use for the heat left after generating the electricity.

: Mebbie, mebbie not. It may be a lot easier to preheat water than a house,
: with a tiny liquid-liquid heat exchanger, especially with a water cooled
: engine. 

If you have fully preheated the domestic hot water, and have heat left
over, if you can then use the heat for space heating, you don't have to
throw it away.  You can use a fairly simple water to air heat exchanger
(radiator) to get the space heating.

: >And a system which can provide fully heated domestic hot water makes more
: >use of waste heat

: Bullshit.

Let me say it again.  If you can only preheat the water, and have no
space heating requirements, once you have fully preheated the water,
all you can do is throw away heat if you still need to generate electricity.
If you can fully heat the water, you can utilize more "waste" heat before
before you need to start throwing it away.

: >and replaces the capital and operating cost of a seperate water heater.

: True, but that has nothing to do with whether the "waste heat" should
: be included in the efficiency calculation. Why do I argue about technical
: things with people who can't spell? :-)

Any heat which you cannot utilize once the water is fully heated and
there are no space heating requirements is truly waste heat, then
brings down the system efficiency.

Let me give an example.  Outdoor temperatures are high, and so the air
conditioning is turned on.  This creates high electrical demand.  The
cogeneration system starts cranking out a lot of watts, and a lot of
heat.  After perhaps on hour, the water in the hot water tank is fully
heated.  But it is still hot outside, and the air conditioner continues
to run.  There is no need for space heating (obviously).  All you can
do is throw away the heat.  Now system efficiency is down to 25%-35%.

In areas with long hot summers, this would happen frequently.  Cooler
climates would make this infrequent, and would thus give better year
round average efficiency.

BTW, I can spell.  I just can't type.

: >: The concept makes a lot of sense to me, and I think we will soon see a few
: >: good gas cogen units on the market from companies like Yorke and Intelligen.
: >: The fact that Micro didn't work out, perhaps with the aid of your confusion
: >: and misinformation, does not mean that similar systems won't succeed.
: >
: >I didn't see this confusion and misinformation.

: Obviously.

Yeah, I was able to work out the economics of the alternative.

: >I believe in efficiency and energy conservation.  But it is not the end
: >to be had regardless of other costs.  If big, heavy, and expensive equipment
: >is needed to save or produce small amounts of energy, then it doesn't
: >make sense to do it.

: I agree completely. Photovoltaics cost about $5/peak Watt, and 100%
: solar house heating can cost about 5 cents/peak Watt... I wonder why
: so many people who live in cold places are in love with photovoltaics,
: and still use oil burners in their basements?
 
Perhaps because they need to keep their house warm during long cold
Winter nights?

---

From: JJP <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Aug 1996 00:53:53 GMT

>>: How much did it cost? How many kW did it make, including the heat output? 

My recollection is in the neighborhood of $8000 to $10000 for a unit that had an 
electrical output of 5 kW (enough to meet the peak needs of a typical residential 
unit for most but not all of the year).  This was Micro Cogen, they were one of 
the very few (maybe only) manufacturers of true cogen in this size.

>which the original poster does not seem to understand at all.

I have spent about 12 years (1) in the gas & electric utility industry, (2) as an 
energy analyst for a municipality of over 1 million people and (3) even spent 
some time developing software for a firm selling cogeneration of 75 to 200 kW.  
Prior to that I spent 7 years in college and graduate school to develop the tools 
to complete this analysis, including being a University of California Regents 
Scholar.  I am presently the lead analyst for the conservation activities of a 
utility with over half a million customers.  

I think my credentials are pretty sound.  I fully understand btu efficiency, what 
it means and what it's worth.  Directly adding a btu of electrical output and a 
btu of warm water is an intentionally misleading approach of cogen salesmen.  It 
is somewhat akin to adding the number of Yugo's and BMW's together.  They are 
both cars, but their value is somewhat different.  With cogen you get a bunch of 
Yugo's.

>>And a system which can provide fully heated domestic hot water makes more

Meaningful response.  They skipped that witty comeback in graduate school.

>things with people who can't spell? :-)

Waste heat is calculated in the value of cogeneration, where it is used and at 
the value it is used for.  If you have access to gas water heating the value of 
the thermal efficiency used to heat or pre-heat the water is based upon what it 
would have cost gas to do the same thing.  In that gas is an extremely 
cost-effective water heating fuel the value of the thermal output is not 
particularly high.  (Gas is almost certain to be available at the cogen site 
since most of the units for residences are gas fuelled).  

By the way, I may be guilty of a typo, but I do wish you could explain the 
meaning of your " :- " punctuation.  Is it a code for other cogen salesmen?

>					  Tom Smith 

{I snipped all of the uninteresting stuff}

---

From: All locked up and nowhere to go <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Aug 1996 23:36:56 GMT

>a pre-heater for a hot water heater.

This sounds like a triumph of poor design over good principles.  Given
adequate heat exchangers there is no reason that an engine should not be
able to heat to full domestic hot water temperatures.  Aircraft piston
engines often run cylinder head temperatures of 300 F and more, and
methane has an octane rating far better than aviation fuel.  A properly
designed cogenerator should be able to boil water, and I have seen
Cummins cogenerators advertised as being usable for water distillation.

---

From: "Duane C. Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 23:29:51 -0700

john wilson wrote:
> Dave Wood wrote:
> Dave,
> To answer your last question, Yes!
> 
> Back in 1991 I came across an article about such a company.  I inquired
> (called the company) and the PRESIDENT replied.  He sent a brochure
> about their co-generation unit for home use.  It appears about the size
> of a refrigerator.  He talked about expansion from their present 20kW to
> anything from 5kW to 250kW.  He asked that I get back with them in 1992.
> I never followed up.
> 

Try these guys also at about $8000.

Intelligen Energy Systems       Tom Sciacca, President
58 South Street                 Neil Slavin, Exec. VP
Hopkinton, MA 01748             (508) 435-9007

-- 
CUL8ER

Duane C. Johnson
Ziggy
WA0VBE
Red Rock Energy
1825 Florence St.
White Bear Lake, MN, USA 55110-3364
(612)635-5065 w
(612)426-4766 h
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3027/

---

From: [email-masked] (Dave Wood)
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 96 08:18:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   john wilson <[email-masked]> wrote:
-snip-
"Dave,

micro cogen Inc.
1335 Midway Dr.
Alpine, California 92001
619.445.3563
619.445.0505 fax
Craig Linden : President

John 
Mid Michigan"

Yes, Alpine is close to San Diego. I lived in Alpine for a short time
(probably why the article stuck with me, Alpine is a small town.).

-Dave

---

From: [email-masked] (dmitry victor paramonov)
Date: 7 Aug 1996 03:32:32 GMT

: 	Several years ago, a newspaper article in the San Diego
: Union profiled a local, start-up company that was developing a
: a natural gas powered generator with the intention of using it
: for generating electricity and using the heated coolant to supply
: heat for the home. The set-up was claimed to fit in an insulated
: , refrigerator sized box and was supposed to be economical for
: a 4 unit apartment building.
: 	As far as I know, it never went to market.
: Has anyone heard of this or something similar?

: -Dave

Several years ago, Dutch-Russian Joint Venture was developing and testing 
natural gas powered cogeneration units to supply hot water and heat for 
houses, greenhouses etc. as well as electricity. Electricity was produced 
by means of thermionic emission. There are similar concepts using 
thermoelectrics and possibly AMTEC (see several last IECEC).

Dmitry

---

From: All locked up and nowhere to go <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Aug 1996 01:15:15 GMT

>electricity) for residential use, in the 8 - 15 KW range. 

This is only a vague hint, but I believe that Kohler builds a
one-cylineer, liquid-cooled, gas-fired engine for cogeneration
applications.  You might want to look them up, either to find
a dealer (to build your own) or to get a list of their clients.

---

From: Steve Bowles <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 14:55:53 -0700

> >electricity) for residential use, in the 8 - 15 KW range.

I believe that Tecogen makes a 10 KW model, or at least they did a few years 
back.  You might want to look them up.

-- 
<>* Steven Bowles, Sr.                         Kente Systems       *<>
<>     [email-masked]    http://www2.pcix.com/~steveb/kente.html   <>
<>		Because your Technology Investment should be        <> 
<>		    making money FOR YOU, THAT'S WHY!!              <>

---

From: John Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 15:34:24 GMT

> electricity) for residential use, in the 8 - 15 KW range.

For technical and case history information, check with CADDET --Centre 
for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies. 
 They are an OCED and IEA organization dealing with residential and 
industrial energy.  A very good source of real info, unlike most of the 
crap in this newsgroup; sorry I couldn't resist and have almost stopped 
reading because of the off-subject content.
 
PO BOX 17
6130 AA SITTART
THE NETHERLANDS
TEL 31 46 420 2224
FAX 31 46 451 0389
EMAIL [email-masked]
WEB HTTP://WWW.CADDET-EE.ORG

---

From: Arnt Karlsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 03:04:39 +0200

Mike Barney wrote:
> 
> Can anyone provide a pointer to a small co-generator (natural gas to electricity) for residential use, in the 8 - 15 KW range.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> mike barney
> [email-masked]
> 

..8-15 kW electric or total pwr ?

Do it yourself or buy turn-key installation ?

Use on grid or off grid or both ?

Store energy or use another/alternative energy source in the event of grid or pipeline
failure ?

I'm not ready to publish my own stuff, but try a search-engine on alternative home power or
similar as keyword or these links:

http://solstice.crest.org/online/virtual-library/VLib-energy.html

http://www.biomass.org/sites.html

http://ecosys.drdr.virginia.edu/Environment.html

http://www.wetlabs.com/aeex/sintro.html
-- 

..KR f Arnt

..URL:<a href="http://www.stud.his.no/~arnt/disclaimer.html">disclaimer</a>...

---

From: Phil Scott <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Sep 1996 01:01:57 GMT

A
       This is what I'd do.   Buy a 6 or 8K watt honda WATER COOLED,
       Natural gas portable generator.    Buy an auxilliary 200 gallon
       hot water heater with water circulating pump.

       Install an auxillary hot water coil in the air conditioning ducts.

       Run the honda generator in the summer during peak load hours to
       operate a separate 2 ton rated air conditioning system, and store the
       heat from the honda in the 200 gallon hot water heater.

       By running only on the peak demand hours one reduces electrical demand
       charges, and over all utility bill significantly... perhaps by as much
       as 50%.

       In the spring and fall months, hot water produced can be used to
       provide a significant portion of heat for the home.

       Payback period would be between 3 and 5 years.  The energy independence
       would be a fringe benefit. 

       Note: the generator should not be run without at least a 50% load,
       this rules out operating it in temperate weather.

       I would not suggest a full time industrial grade system... it would not
       be cost efficient.  The honda is a reliable system, and used intermittently
       should last for years.

       These approaches taken by themselves are marginally effective, but
       combined with some solar cells and battery storage, thermal mass
       built into the home, solar optimized glazing, and taking advantage of
       utility company discounts for going to interruptable service, quite a
       lot can be accomplished.    Spot heating and cooling tactics... zone
       control and heated pads in cold climates can exponentially enhance
       these systems.

       As we head into what undoubtedly will become a very competitve world
       economy with the US playing second fiddle for the first time to newly
       developed third world nations.... costs of operation will be a critical
       feature of comfortable economic survival.

       If you would like help in the design and installation of such a system,
       I am available.

       Phil

---

From: "David Clancey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 13:16:22 GMT

Have you considered the Intelligen unit from Hopkinton Ma? It produces 5kw,
runs your residential meter backwards, (you get same rate as your
supplier), hot water, and about 5K BTU hot air heat.

Phil Scott <[email-masked]> wrote in article
<[email-masked]>...
> >..URL:<a
href="http://www.stud.his.no/~arnt/disclaimer.html">disclaimer</a>...

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 6 Sep 1996 09:33:04 -0400

Phil Scott  <[email-masked]> wrote:

>       Natural gas portable generator...

I wonder how often one has to change the oil in this generator. Some specs say
change the oil every 25 hours. Rudy Behrens has impressive piles of empty oil
containers all round his propane-powered GM generator... It would also be nice
to feed power back to the grid with some sort of interface circuitry.

Nick

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Dierauf)
Date: 7 Sep 1996 20:15:41 GMT

In article <01bb9beb$d777e7c0$54a7f5c7@nostradamus>, [email-masked] says...
>supplier), hot water, and about 5K BTU hot air heat.

Good night!  You could get in a heap of trouble if you spin your meter 
backwards without a proper utility inter-connect.  Imagine the
poor line repair person who gets zapped by your generator to repair
a local outage.

---
Timothy A. Dierauf, PE
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Colorado State University

---

From: [email-masked] (Walter McCannon)
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 01:28:21 GMT

Can you share with us details of the "proper utility interconnect".

Most equipment manufacturers seem to ignore this requirement OF STATE
GOVERNMENTS and dump it on the purchaser.  Wonder why?

Walter

[email-masked] (Nick Pine) wrote on 7 Sep 1996 18:30:55 -0400:

| Tim Dierauf <[email-masked]> wrote:
| >[email-masked] says...
| 
| >>Have you considered the Intelligen unit from Hopkinton Ma? It produces 5kw,
| >>runs your residential meter backwards...
| 
| >Good night!
| 
| Jeepers!
| 
| >You could get in a heap of trouble if you spin your meter 
| >backwards without a proper utility inter-connect.
| 
| The Intelligen unit has a proper utility interconnect.
| 
| >Imagine the poor line repair person who gets zapped by your generator
| >to repair a local outage.
| 
| Utilities seem to exaggerate this technical problem. I wonder why. 
| 
| Nick
| 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter P. McCannon                          e-mail: [email-masked]
Marietta, GA            CI$: 74633,403      [email-masked]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 7 Sep 1996 18:30:55 -0400

Tim Dierauf <[email-masked]> wrote:
>[email-masked] says...

>>runs your residential meter backwards...

>Good night!

Jeepers!

>You could get in a heap of trouble if you spin your meter 
>backwards without a proper utility inter-connect.

The Intelligen unit has a proper utility interconnect.

>Imagine the poor line repair person who gets zapped by your generator
>to repair a local outage.

Utilities seem to exaggerate this technical problem. I wonder why. 

Nick

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 8 Sep 1996 05:04:22 -0400

>Can you share with us details of the "proper utility interconnect".

The system needs to disconnect from the grid when grid power fails.
There are lots of automatic ways to do this. Intelligen's unit uses a
grid-excited induction generator. 

Nick

---

From: [email-masked] (Walter McCannon)
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 20:49:30 GMT

Ah, the ole "it's only an INDUCTION generator" scam.  In isolation, with a
perfect world's power system, this would be a fine caveat.

In reality, utilities must place shunt capacitors on distribution lines to
supply VARs to customers and thus reduce the line losses (efficiency
proponents love to crow about utility line losses).  

In the presence of these shunt capacitors, the "harmless little, surely
insignificant induction generator" continues to supply fault current to a
line short circuit after the utilities equipment attempts to de-energize
the line.  Most of the times "the power fails" it is due to local
lightning, vegetation, animals, or (God forbid) people contacting the
conductors.

This is why state governments and utilities get serious about paralleled
generation, SAFETY.  The measurement I use professionally is a line's
conductors lying across or near a wreaked school bus - will the generator
pose a hazard, even momentarily, in that situation?

Tirade ends here ----.

I'd be glad to get you references to both the states requirement of the
UTILITY assuring that it must be a "safe interconnection" and the fact of
induction generator's fault current contributions.  

(Sorry, I don't have a document scanner, but the reference to state
government public records and technical periodicals will have to do, if
needed.  They're not at-hand for me presently.)

Walter McCannon

[All quotation marks refer to typical statements of those seeking to
parallel generators and are not attributable to anyone contributing to this
message thread.]

[email-masked] (Nick Pine) wrote on 8 Sep 1996 05:04:22 -0400:

| Walter McCannon <[email-masked]> wrote:
|  
| >Can you share with us details of the "proper utility interconnect".
| 
| The system needs to disconnect from the grid when grid power fails.
| There are lots of automatic ways to do this. Intelligen's unit uses a
| grid-excited induction generator. 
| 
| Nick
|

---

From: "Duane C. Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 08:08:35 -0700

> poor line repair person who gets zapped by your generator to repair

You seem to be unaware that utility intertie systems, while not common,
are a standard part of renewable energy equipment today.

Of course the equipment must be rated for this use. Some of the
requirements for this use are:

1. The system must not output power to the grid when the utility is 
   not present. This is grid shutdown.

2. The system must not output power when the voltage is outside a
   prescribed over/under limit. This is voltage limit shutdowm.

3. The system must not output power when an over current condition
   occures. This is current limit shutdown.

I am not familier with Intelligen's equipment but I am familier
with Omnion, Troy MI. They build only the grid intertie equipment.
All such equipment registered with the power company must operate
in a similar and safe maner.

The first requirement is met using a precision line frequency 
measurement. When the equipment is trying to speed up the 60Hz
you can be pretty shure the grid has gone down. Omnion can detect
this in less than a second, as stated in their proposal to me.

The second and third voltage/current requirements are also used.

This type of equipment can be used in several ways. On way would
be to simply just shut down and open the line intertie breaker.
Another way is to continue to supply power to the home and 
disconnect from the grid until such time as the power on the grid
is restored.

A totaly different way to address the problem is with sincronous
alternators. These are esentially AC induction motors that are
overdriven to output power to the grid. These AC induction motors
can output power only when energised from the grid. When the grid 
goes down these stop outputing power. 

BTW one electric company report stated there were more than 150,000
power grig line intertie systems operating right now and the number
is growing rapidly. There have also been no accidents atributed to
these devices excepy where the lineman was careless.

Many people have a mental picture of a tree structure when thinking
about the structure of the power distribution system. This is just
not so. The grid is described as a "grid" becouse it is
interconnected like a grid or web like structure. This grid starts 
with large area interconnections ans passes gown to smaller grid
connections and finally to my block which is supplied on e ends by
electric pathways comming from 6 directions. My house is supplied
by power comming from 2 directions.

This grid structure is so robust that a tree can break a line 
almost anywhere and not interupt power except to only a very few
costomers. The service lineman does not assume any line is dead 
just becouse it is broken. The power may still be applied to both
sides of a broken wire. This is important to remember BOTH SIDES
CAN BE "HOT" !!!!!

If a lineman picks up a wire while unprotected and gets injured
it is his fault alone. He has been trained to expect that all 
wires are live and deadly.

-- 
CUL8ER

Stupid is Forever
Ignorance can be Fixed

Duane C. Johnson
Ziggy
WA0VBE
Red Rock Energy
1825 Florence St.

---

From: john <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 96 17:17:06 GMT

Well done Phil.
I like your determination to save waste heat whilest maintaining the advantages 
of our techy way of life.
Maybe a car starter motor could start the geny in some z80 controlled 
conveniant way, if the geny hasn't got the facilitys already.-- 

Yours sincerely....John G.*?*?*?*?*? Us Neuron's don't KNOW that much, period.
*What is existance without socialising?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?
I really want the world to get better, not on a whim, but because as this tide
of awesome tech' power comes in, the dangers of abuses grows plus purge plans.
(Posts mispelt or not should be written with content to be worth saving
so as apathy doesn't drown lurkers)c?

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Dierauf)
Date: 9 Sep 1996 02:57:01 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>are a standard part of renewable energy equipment today.

Please do not assume what I do and do not know.  I have worked on 
the commissioning of cogen systems that range in size from 60kW Tecoboxes to
a 1000MW plant in upstate New York (Independence Station, Sithe Energies).

My point is, one should not just start a motor in their home and 
spin their billing meter backwards.  One must have a couple of discussions
with their local utility or provider first.  As for what type of protective
devices are necessary, your local provider *must* provide you that information.
Contact their customer service department.

Cheers,
Tim

---
Timothy A. Dierauf, PE
Solar Energy Applications Laboratory
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Colorado State University

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 9 Sep 1996 10:56:17 -0400

Walter McCannon <[email-masked]> wrote:
 
>Ah, the ole "it's only an INDUCTION generator" scam.

Right. The one in the National Electrical Code :-) Page 807 of the 1996
Handbook says, in a commentary to section 705-40: 

  Induction generators are commonly used today. They have characteristics
  quite different from synchronous machines. They are more rugged because
  of the construction of the rotor. They are less expensive because of their
  basic design, availability, and type of starting and control equipment.
  Theoretically, an induction machine can continue to run on an isolated
  system if a large capacitor bank provides excitation. In reality, an
  induction machine will lose stability and be shut down quickly by one
  of the protective devices.

So that's how the Intelligen unit fails to fry linemen and big busfuls of
school children :-) Its diesel engine doesn't even have a speed control,
but it does have a microprocessor to carefully monitor the grid waveform.
If the line excitation for its induction generator wavers significantly,
overvoltage, undervoltage, or frequency alarms trip it off line instantly. 

Intelligen is building 10 natural-gas powered prototypes now.
Production should begin in a year. 

Nick

---

From: [email-masked] (george p swanton)
Date: 9 Sep 1996 17:12:17 -0400

In article <01bb9beb$d777e7c0$54a7f5c7@nostradamus>,
>supplier), hot water, and about 5K BTU hot air heat.

This may have been mentioned earlier, but just in case...

'Running your meter backwards' is something of an oversimplification.
Most important is that the amount that you are paid for energy sold 
may be the same amount you are billed (called 'net metering') or it 
may be a dissapointingly small fraction of that amount. 
Check with your utility for policy before investing.

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 11:57:13 -0400

<[email-masked]> wrote:

>New York just passed a law that PV systems can make the meter run backwords.

Cool. I wonder about the voltage. Last time I talked with Con Ed, they said
they needed power suppied at high substation voltage levels, with a dedicated
phone line, telemetry and control, etc., some $150K's worth of equipment to 
protect their network from your tiny type-approved 5 kW cogenerator, and they
would only credit generated electricity at retail rates on an instantaneous
basis, ie if you made 5 kW and used 2 kW during one second, you would be
credited for 3 kW-seconds at a very low "avoided cost," even if you used 10 kW
the rest of the day. But, they said they had 11 operating cogenerators in
Brooklyn alone, notwithstanding all of their unreasonably-imposed obstacles.

It's no surprise that utilities exaggerate the safety aspects of parallel
operation. Safety is often used as an excuse for controlling people. The way
to fight this greedy and obstructive and illegal attitude and behavior of
theirs is to appeal to their watchdogs, the PUC, saying it amounts to de
facto violation of the national PURPA law, but that's not easy.

>Question, Does anyone know anything about the inverters these laws are
>based on?  I am envisioning a micro that monitors the waveform, keeping
>the inverter in line and shutting down if the lines go down. Is this the
>way they work?  

Sure, in principle. But such a system can be extremely simple, compared to a
standalone inverter that has to synthesize sine waves and charge batteries.
It can be almost as simple as the $5-10 lamp dimmers sold in hardware stores,
using most of the same power-handling components: a DC-DC converter to raise
the PV or windmill or hydro output voltage to a few hundred volts, a choke or
simple filter to limit power and control distortion, a triac bridge to connect
the DC source to the line at certain instants to allow power to flow into the
grid (vs. a lamp dimmer whose bridge connects the load to the grid at certain
instants, to allow power to flow out of the grid), and a $5 microcomputer chip
to monitor the grid waveform and optimize the amount of power being fed back 
>from  the renewable energy source. And no batteries :-)

Nick

Nicholson L. Pine                      System design and consulting
Pine Associates, Ltd.                                (610) 489-0545 
821 Collegeville Road                           Fax: (610) 489-7057
Collegeville, PA 19426                     Email: [email-masked]

Computer simulation and modeling. High performance, low cost, solar heating
and cogeneration system design. BSEE, MSEE. Registered US Patent Agent.
Our solar closet paper is at http://leia.ursinus.edu/~physics/solar.html

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 12:02:09 -0400

Duane C. Johnson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>The PUCs usually don't want to comply with the "avoided cost" calculation
>provisions of the PURPA law for small customers. As a compromise they bill
>at parity. This has the effect of my selling energy to the grid at the same
>rate as my neighbors buy it.

As I recall, retail buyback is a PURPA legal requirement, for small
renewable power producers, not a compromise.

Nick

---

From: [email-masked] (PVCAD, Inc.)
Date: 9 Sep 1996 21:14:01 -0700

>Can you share with us details of the "proper utility interconnect".

There are US and international standards regarding this subject.

An example is:

929-1988 (R1991) IEEE Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Residential and 
Intermediate Photovoltaic (PV) Systems (ANSI) 
12 pages [1-55937-666-X] [SH11494-NYF] $50.00 

this is listed for purchase on:
http://stdsbbs.ieee.org/products/catalog/power.html

Most major US electric utilities, some libraries, and some universities
maintain sets of these standards for public access, but they are
copyrighted.

This standard deals with both the safety and power quality issues.

Bill Kaszeta
PVCAD Inc.
Mesa  Arizona USA

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 06:26:10 GMT

One more thing, I work for a utility, any lineman not working between
two grounds is violating company safty rules, even on a one ended
line.  
   New York just passed a law that PV systems can make the meter run
backwords. Before if you wanted to sell extra PV power to the power
company, you had two meters, the incoming one charged you retail the
other paid you wholesale.  Now a person only has one meter and just
settels the net defferance with the utility.
  Afew months ago Calf. passed the same law, same one meter system,
saying people would use the grid as storage so they would not have to
invest in banks of batteries, so more people could afford PV systems.
These two state governments see no problem with multifeed power grids.
  Question, Does anyone know anything about the inverters these laws
are based on?  I am invisioning a micro that monitors the waveform,
keeping the inverter in line and shuting down if the lines go down. Is
this the way they work?  
  I hope this law catches on here in Texas.
jb

---

From: "Duane C. Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 06:49:28 -0700

Hi Tim;

> >are a standard part of renewable energy equipment today.

I apologise if I seemed to be critisizing you unfairly but you
did seem to be unaware of these systems when you ststed in 
incredulous terms "Good night". You impuned the name of a company
that does "run the meter backwards". I myself am familier with
Omnion, another line intertie provider, who makes systems in the
1 to 100KW range. Our system, using the Omnion unit, used a large
induction motor as the generator. I believe that Trace also makes 
a two way inverter with line intertie. There are many others also.

This is a Quote from the earlier post you were critisizing:
>>
> Have you considered the Intelligen unit from Hopkinton Ma? It produces
> 5kw, runs your residential meter backwards, (you get same rate as your

<<

> a 1000MW plant in upstate New York (Independence Station, Sithe Energies).

With this much experience you should be able to give advice to the
rest of us on how to accomplish line interties safely. Usually when
I post on the newsgroup I try to add usefull information to the 
group. This is a public forum and we all need to be precise about
what we write. 

Are you aware of anyone ever being hurt as a result of a line intertie 
system falsly energizing the grid?
 
> spin their billing meter backwards.  One must have a couple of 
> discussions with their local utility or provider first.

Well of course the lituriture that comes with the Intelegen unit will
show the customer how to do this. Most residential systems that I
know about will use a dual meter setup even thought the billing is
at parity. The PUCs usually don't want to comply with the 
"avoided cost" calculation provisions of the PURPA law for small 
customers. As a compromise they bill at parity. This has the effect 
of my selling energy to the grid at the same rate as my neighbors 
buy it.

> As for what type of protective devices are necessary, your 
> local provider *must* provide you that information.

Also companies such as Intelegen and Omnion, who may accomplish
the safety goals differently, do comply with these rules. If there
is a conflict with the local power company than they will ususlly
come to a compromise on the rules based on past experiences.   

-- 
CUL8ER

Stupid is Forever
Ignorance can be Fixed

Duane C. Johnson
Ziggy
WA0VBE
Red Rock Energy
1825 Florence St.

---

From: John Brooks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:50:53 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Nick Pine
<[email-masked]> writes
<snip>
>overvoltage, undervoltage, or frequency alarms trip it off line instantly. 
yes, but....
A really nice potential feature of co-gen units is the capability to
provide standby power when the utility supply fails.  I suppose it's
sort-of reasonable to argue for external excitation if an 'induction'
machine is that much cheaper and more robust than a synch. one.  But if
the argument is all to do with the cost of control gear and safety
protection, this should be moot almost immediately.  With the
availability of cheap microcontrollers, almost any electronic device
aimed at a reasonable sized market should cost at most a few bucks.
What's the problem?

>Production should begin in a year. 
And will these have spark ignition?  If so, what is their planned duty
cycle.  More than 1 maintenance visit per year could be a problem.

-- 
John Brooks

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Dierauf)
Date: 11 Sep 1996 00:16:36 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...

>a two way inverter with line intertie. There are many others also.

I'm sorry if I impugned your good name.  Back in 1986, I witnessed a small 10 kW
system in Berkeley where the Laundromat owner installed a system and 
energized it without ever notifying the utility of his intentions.  He just
started running his meter backwards!  It really gave the fledgling 
micro-cogen market a bad name.  I'm sure you wouldn't want your customers
to do this.

>group. This is a public forum and we all need to be precise about

My background is in performance engineering (cycle design, optimized 
operation, ...) for larger systems.  Most of the interconnects for these systems
are into utility high voltage transmission lines.  I let the electrical engineers 
hash it out with the utility and sweat the details.

Also, as stated in a previous post, each provider may have different 
requirements for a self generator.  Contact your local utility for
what is exactly required for your system.

>system falsly energizing the grid?

Every utility I've worked with wants to be cognazant of all points of generation
on their lines -- big or small -- induction or synchronous.  

>> discussions with their local utility or provider first.

Got it?

>come to a compromise on the rules based on past experiences.   

... and this requires a discussion!  

It's time to sign off.  This is Tim over and *out*.

---
Timothy A. Dierauf, PE

---

From: "David Clancey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:15:19 GMT

That is handled by the unit.  If the grid is not up the unit is not up.  I
guess thats why they call it "Intelligen".

Tim Dierauf <[email-masked]> wrote in article
<[email-masked]>...
> >Have you considered the Intelligen unit from Hopkinton Ma? It produces
5kw,

---

From: "David Clancey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:27:10 GMT

Regarding the interconnect in MA formal documents are filed with the
untility regarding the interconnection.  These documents include legal,
engineering, and financial aspects of the change.  The aspect of the meter
reading backwards would seem to be simply the easiest way to get retail
price for the co-generated power.  I'm sure its a big marketing plug
because it is the one aspect the average homeowner can understand.

Any company would have to do it by the rules given todays legal and press
environment.

Tim Dierauf <[email-masked]> wrote in article
<[email-masked]>...

---

From: [email-masked] (Walter McCannon)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 02:12:35 GMT

Thanks.  My reference was to the specific device being discussed.

Walter

[email-masked] (PVCAD, Inc.) wrote on 9 Sep 1996 21:14:01 -0700:

| [email-masked] (Walter McCannon) wrote:
| 
| 
| >Can you share with us details of the "proper utility interconnect".
| 
| There are US and international standards regarding this subject.
| 
| An example is:
| 
| 929-1988 (R1991) IEEE Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Residential and 
| Intermediate Photovoltaic (PV) Systems (ANSI) 
| 12 pages [1-55937-666-X] [SH11494-NYF] $50.00 
| 
| this is listed for purchase on:
| http://stdsbbs.ieee.org/products/catalog/power.html
| 
| Most major US electric utilities, some libraries, and some universities
| maintain sets of these standards for public access, but they are
| copyrighted.
| 
| This standard deals with both the safety and power quality issues.
| 
| Bill Kaszeta
| PVCAD Inc.
| Mesa  Arizona USA
| 
| 
|

---

From: [email-masked] (Walter McCannon)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 02:12:49 GMT

[email-masked] (Nick Pine) wrote on 10 Sep 1996 11:57:13 -0400:

| 
| It's no surprise that utilities exaggerate the safety aspects of parallel
| operation. Safety is often used as an excuse for controlling people. The way
| to fight this greedy and obstructive and illegal attitude and behavior of
| theirs is to appeal to their watchdogs, the PUC, saying it amounts to de
| facto violation of the national PURPA law, but that's not easy.
| 
  You seem to be unaware of the fact that IT IS the utilities commissions
that are requiring the utilities to insure that such installations ARE
safe.  These requirements have the force of law in regard to the utility's
performance of that duty.  Please do write, the utilities do not want the
liability and will gladly, eagarly, share it with YOU.

Most safety problems are concerned with rotating machinery.  The PV arrays
and inverters are pretty much failsafe in my opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter P. McCannon                          e-mail: [email-masked]
Marietta, GA            CI$: 74633,403      [email-masked]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (James S. Bassett)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 07:19:45 GMT

Hi,
  I recently read about a new law in NY. that lets people with PV
solar systems sale extra power back to the utility at the same rate
the person is buying power at.  Suposedly the utility, using two
meters were seling power at around 12 cents per kWh and buying it at
about 2 cents per kWh.  The new law states that a one meter system
will be used.
  Calf. was suposed to pass this same law but their reasons were
different.  They thought that power would go out of the meter in the
day time and come back in at night in effect using the grid as
storage.  This would save the price of storage batteries so more
people could afford PV systems plus save the natural resources needed
to build the batteries.  It would also offset peek power for the
utility on hot days maby saving the need to build another power plant.
  Can anyone conferm these?  Where can I find the text of these laws?
Where can I find info in the syncronus inverter used to do this?

Thanks and good luck
jb
May the force live long and engage.                           
good luck                                                     
jb

---

From: "Duane C. Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:44:12 -0700

> renewable power producers, not a compromise.

In minnesota this is correct when suplying 40KW or less power.
This prevents the legal hassel of having to do the "avoided cost"
calculation. There are parts of the contry where the avoided cost
would be higher than the local rate.

Avoided cost is not just the cost of fuel. It was designed to
"avoid" the "cost of electricity" if a new power plant had to
be constructed. New power plants are expensive. If the new plant
was a nucler plant it would be even more expensive.

I read the article about the guy that caused the PURPA law to
be enacted. He obtained 14c/KWh when the local rate was around
9c/KWh. The avoided cost in his case was the avoided cost of 
running new power lines in mountainous regines of montana. He
was producing power from the mountai streams. These streams were 
high head streams with good flow. 

Forgive me if the costs are off but they are as I remember them. 
If anyone has more details please respond.

The power company wanted to build a new plant. They were not 
interested in buying his power. He sued and it went to the
supreme court. They ruled that he was right. They devised the
idea of "avoided cost". He even was paid more than he had asked.

The avoided cost is fair to the costomers as thay are paying for
the cost of electricity if a new plant was present. But of course 
this plant is not needed becouse the reneuable energy is cheaper
than the new plant and it's polution.

For the small power producer, 40KW or less, the parity payment
is way less of a hassel than trying to calculate the truw 
avoided cost calculation. You can imagine the legal hassels of
calculating the cost of power from a plant not yet built. It would
be a nightmare. 

Neat huh.

-- 
CUL8ER

Stupid is Forever
Ignorance can be Fixed

Duane C. Johnson
Ziggy
WA0VBE
Red Rock Energy
1825 Florence St.

---

From: Jerry Sauser <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:38:53 -0400

Tim Dierauf wrote:

> snip..

I have a question for Tim, Nick, Duane, or anyone else knowledgeable
in the Co-generation field.
Most utilities offer peak and off-peak rates.  I read one posting where
the guy said his peak/off-peak rates were $.085/$0.017kwh respectively.
What would keep an individual from storing the off-peak power and
reselling it during peak hours?
If the efficiency of the storage was 80% (uneducated guess), and the 
inversion efficiency was 80% (again, a guess), it would take 1.56kwh (off 
peak) to produce 1Kwh (peak). And of course the cost of ownership of the
equipment gets added in.
Regards,
Jerry Sauser [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Pine)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 22:47:24 -0400

Dave Wood <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Jerry Sauser <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>reselling it during peak hours?

Money, I suppose, ie unfavorable economics, including charger/inverter cost
and battery lifetime, and efficiency, and maybe battery explosions. I've often
wondered if it's legal to have a big relay in the basement that switches the
whole house over to off-peak power at off-peak times.

>If such a scheme were to work and become popular, the utility would likely
>work to have rates or rules changed to make the scheme unprofitable...

Seems like most electrical utilities are economically unstable systems
(or used to be), like helicoptors, requiring constant public watchdogging.
Ignore them and we soon find ourselves surrounded by gold plated wires, in
the name of higher efficiency, with the cost passed on to the ratepayers,
and the utility making a larger profit as a certain percentage on capital
investment.

Nick

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Dierauf)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 17:06:22 GMT

>reselling it during peak hours?

Actually, that's a very good question, and many people have been studying 
it.  The problem is the economic feasibility and/or mechanism for storage 
--  especially for large scale storage.  

A common working system is pumped hydro.  There are two reservoirs: a 
lower and upper.  During the night (when rates are cheap) water is pumped 
>from  the lower reservoir to the upper.  During the daily on-peak period, 
water is drained from the upper reservoir to the lower generating 
electricity along the way.  Other systems in use, or being studied, 
include ice storage, compressed air storage in underground caverns, ..., 
... (there are many exciting ideas).

If we could solve the large scale storage problem, wind farms would take 
a large step up in economic viability.  Here the problem is the cut-in 
and cut-out load profile that a dispatcher must deal with.  For example, 
suppose we have a farm that is nominally rated at 50 MW and the 
availability is 40% *and* we have a mechanism for storage.  The wind 
plant could then provide a steady 20 MW to the utility dispatcher instead 
of a load profile that has a stochastic element.

As for a residential plant, its going to come down to your resources.  
How many batteries are you going to buy?  Are you going to dig a second 
pond? ...? ...?  Be sure to do a proper economic analysis.

Cheers,
Tim

---
Timothy A. Dierauf, PE

---

From: Brendan Kirby <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Sep 1996 17:32:30 GMT

>peak) to produce 1Kwh (peak). And of course the cost of ownership of the

Your effeciency numbers are probably a little low. And you correctly 
point out that it is the cost of equipment ownership that explains why 
the utility is not (or rarely) doing this now.

-- 

Brendan Kirby
Oak Ridge National Lab

[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (PVCAD, Inc.)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 20:14:01 -0700

Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.

>Jerry Sauser [email-masked]

Generally, the higher sell rates are available only under a net metering to
offset energy purchased at a sell rate.  Under net metering if a cogenerator
sells more than is purchased, only the wholesale rate applies to the net
sale.  Without net metering, the utility pays only the wholesale rate, typically
only $0.02 to $0.04 in the USA southwest.

It is easy to program a Trace SW4024 sinewave inverter to charge a battery
during off peak and to sell energy during peak periods, but in Arizona you
can not make a profit doing so at this time.

What you need to be able to do is sell the stored power at a retail rate
to someone who needs it during peak periods.  This may become
possible in the future as I understand the direction of deregulation of 
the electric utility in the USA.

Bill Kaszeta
PVCAD Inc.
Mesa  Arizona  USA

---

From: [email-masked] (Dave Wood)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 23:07:47 GMT

If such a scheme were to work and become popular, the utility would likely
work to have rates or rules changed to make the scheme unprofitable. That's
what happened at one (industrial) co-generator that I worked at. In 1985 when
they went on line, the peak rates and avoided  costs were quite high and it 
was easy to make a profit selling excess capacity to the utility. Each year, 
the utility managed to convince the PUC to slightly lower the rates until 5
years later we were no longer profitable. This was after the utility had 
stagnated residential rates but raised rates 800% in a decade for industrial
users. Once they made cogeneration feasable, they proceded to lower industrial
rates and seek favorable rules from the PUC. The company had invested 52 
million dollars to build the plant based on 1983 energy costs- a plant that 
was expected to last at least 15 years- but shut it down in 1992 due to 
changing power costs.

-Dave

---

From: [email-masked] (Rob Antonishen)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 12:18:52 GMT

>reselling it during peak hours?

Most utilities I've heard of won't get involved in such concepts
unless they are major enough to really benifit the utility.

One of the most common of these schemes (used by numerous utilities)
is the concept of pump storage.  Durring the off-peak hours, water is
pumped up to a resevoir, then during on-peak hours it is run back
through the (now reversed blades of the) turbine/impeller to generate
electricity.

------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Antonishen                             [email-masked]

(Lost in the woods of Northern Ontario...)
------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (John L. Freiler)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 13:54:59 GMT

Bear in mind, that if it were economicly feasable to store the off-peak
power for peak usage, the powere cpmpanies would eb doing just that.  The
price diffential between peak and off peak represents the power companies
break point on energy storage systems.

John

Tim Dierauf ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >What would keep an individual from storing the off-peak power and
: >reselling it during peak hours?
: 
: Actually, that's a very good question, and many people have been studying 
: it.  The problem is the economic feasibility and/or mechanism for storage 
: --  especially for large scale storage.  
: 
: A common working system is pumped hydro.  There are two reservoirs: a 
: lower and upper.  During the night (when rates are cheap) water is pumped 
: from the lower reservoir to the upper.  During the daily on-peak period, 
: water is drained from the upper reservoir to the lower generating 
: electricity along the way.  Other systems in use, or being studied, 
: include ice storage, compressed air storage in underground caverns, ..., 
: ... (there are many exciting ideas).
: 
: If we could solve the large scale storage problem, wind farms would take 
: a large step up in economic viability.  Here the problem is the cut-in 
: and cut-out load profile that a dispatcher must deal with.  For example, 
: suppose we have a farm that is nominally rated at 50 MW and the 
: availability is 40% *and* we have a mechanism for storage.  The wind 
: plant could then provide a steady 20 MW to the utility dispatcher instead 
: of a load profile that has a stochastic element.
: 
: As for a residential plant, its going to come down to your resources.  
: How many batteries are you going to buy?  Are you going to dig a second 
: pond? ...? ...?  Be sure to do a proper economic analysis.
: 
: Cheers,
: Tim
: 
: ---
: Timothy A. Dierauf, PE
: Solar Energy Applications Laboratory
: Department of Mechanical Engineering
: Colorado State University
:

---

From: "Duane C. Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:36:29 -0700

Hi Jerry;

> Jerry Sauser [email-masked]

This sounds to good to be true. And I think it is.
I have not found anyone who has said that their PUC has allowed
this sort of thing with the split rate peak/off peak rates when
used in a resodential sized system. 

The best that I think you can do, at least now, is one where you sell 
excess power to the grid from some alternative source you have. Of
course this is not what you want to hear,

Maybe someone has done the legal footwork and petitioned their PUC
for this type of rate.

Keep us posted if anyone has any more info.

-- 
CUL8ER

Duane C. Johnson
WA0VBE
Red Rock Energy
1825 Florence St.
White Bear Lake, MN, USA 55110-3364
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3027/
(612)426-4766 h  635-5065 d

---

From: JJP <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Sep 1996 03:39:44 GMT

>the electric utility in the USA.

The evolving movement towards open access will make it possible to sell 
cogenerated electricity on the open market.  The energy would be wheeled over 
utility grids to the ultimate destination at a FERC and state regulated 
transportation rate.

Although this sounds great for cogenerators, it ends the scam that has been 
occuring for decades under the federal PURPA legislation.  This required 
utilities to purchase energy from qualifying cogeneration projects at a 
state-set avoided cost (which was generally administratively determined and 
far in excess of the true market avoided cost).

---

From: JJP <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Sep 1996 03:44:02 GMT

>was expected to last at least 15 years- but shut it down in 1992 due to 

The rates revision was undoubtedly the result of moving TOWARDS a more equitable 
cost-based rate.  Unfortunately for cogeneration salesmen this meant that they 
could no longer make societally uneconomic projects work as a result of an 
unjustifiably high energy rate while relying on artificially low demand charges, 
lack of demand ratchets and preposterously low standby charges.

When your company invested $52 million they should have realized that 
investments that rely on tilted rate structures but are not profitable at 
equitable cost-based rate structures are very risky proposals.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Dierauf)
Date: 26 Sep 1996 16:48:12 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...

>equitable cost-based rate structures are very risky proposals.

Just for the record, I've been evolved with a number of recently commissioned 
cogeneration facilities that are quite profitable with an on-peak variable avoided 
cost in the ~$0.04/kWhr range.

---
Timothy A. Dierauf, PE

---

From: [email-masked] (Dave Wood)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 96 13:08:13 GMT

>equitable cost-based rate structures are very risky proposals.

I don't disagree. They'd have been more successful had they
sized thier cogen to take advantage of the waste heat from the
parent process, made what what cogenerated power they could, perhaps
use an augmenting unit, if practical, then they'd have spent less
and had a lower cost system to operate. They also never completely
realized the expected heat recovery, only about half of what was expected.
I also wouldn't have had a job for 6 years (the most important part)   :)
	However, I doubt that the industrial rates would have been lowered 
were it not due to many customers going to cogeneration plants.
	The company I worked for misjudged: the effectiveness of
recovering their own waste heat, the long term drop in fossil fuel prices 
that lowered their expected savings (we had a coal burning boiler- at the 
time of project planning coal was substantially cheaper than the fuel oil
that they had been using in their cement kilns. The expected price 
differential between fuels didn't stay as high as expected) and the utility
moving to protect it's market. Eventually, the company benefitted from the 
lower rates, too. For a 3 year period though, it was doubtful that the company
would have been able to stay competitive while trying to pay Los Angeles
area industrial electricity rates.

-Dave

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Jebb)
Date: 4 Oct 1996 08:27:58 GMT

>>Many years ago in England, the electrical utility promised that
>>people who invested in an electric heater using off-peak electricity
>>wouldn't have to pay (at all?  much?) for the electricity.
>>They sold a lot of these heaters that heat up a mass of bricks
 >>at night and give off heat all day.  Then they changed their
 >>policy.  Now people would have to pay ordinary rates for the
 >>electricity.  People were angry.  The heaters were a real
 >>drawback on days that turned out to be hotter than expected;
 >>it could get uncomfortably warm.
 >>
 >>Maybe if we got bureaucracies and big organizations out of the
 >>power industry, things would go more efficiently.
 
 >I do not understand, how did they change their  policy?...   what is 
the
 >problem that you have identified?  explain.

I vaguely remember that they did tweak the off-peak charges and times - 
when they introduced "Economy 7". Can't say it's a problem though. 

I just use it to run my dishwasher, washing machine and tumble dryer 
overnight.

---

From: John Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 17:24:38 -0700

> I just use it to run my dishwasher, washing machine and tumble dryer

Yes, but you also don`t forget you paid a higher than 
standard rate for all those units used during the Peak
Time.

Regards   ; [email-masked]

---

From: John Brooks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 10:50:31 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, John Herbert
<[email-masked]> writes
>>  >>power industry, things would go more efficiently.
Would all readers of the groups involved please note my original reply
to this rubbish (which was not originated by Mr Jebb):
This message contains extraordinary inaccuracies
1.  So-called storage heaters are still used, still on sale and for some
classes of user are very cost-effective compared with alternative fuels.
2. It is not true that 'policy has changed'.  Low tariffs (often called
Economy 7, since they are provided for 7 hours each night from around
midnight) are STILL available and are very cheap compared with daytime
tariff.  I have Economy 7 althuogh I do not in fact have storage
heaters.  It is worth it just for clothes washer, dishwasher and running
static loads (fridge, freezer) overnight.
3. Almost all storage heaters have adjustable heat output (by
controlling the airflow through the bricks, which are in a well-
insulated box) so overheating on an unexpectedly hot day is not a
problem.
4. A new version of the tariff plan also take account of the temperature
forecast for the next day and 'charges up' the heaters automatically to
the right level, hence saving money.

It is true that there was overselling of storage heaters long ago - they
are not likely to be competitive with a 'wet' system fuelled by gas and
already in place.  But for a new, well-insulated house, they are NOT
more expensive in fuel terms.

I do not know where your 'facts' came from, but almost every one is
wrong!
>>  >problem that you have identified?  explain.
there was NO policy change.
>> when they introduced "Economy 7". Can't say it's a problem though.
exactly - it isn't.
>standard rate for all those units used during the Peak
Rubbish - the peak tariff IS THE SAME as the the 'standard' tariff.  The
only additional cost is an install fee for the 2-rate meter (trivial)
and a small recurring fixed charge for the 2-rate service.
It may be different in other countries but this subthread relates ONLY
to UK.

-- 
John Brooks  - Technical Consultant, Network Systems and Data Comms
South Croydon, 7CR2 7HN, UK
The opinions expressed here are mine but are not offered as professional advice.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Jebb)
Date: 8 Oct 1996 08:16:24 GMT

>classes of user are very cost-effective compared with alternative fuels.

And if you eliminate the need for a gas supply, you no longer need to pay 
the standing charge.

>insulated box) so overheating on an unexpectedly hot day is not a

Apparently there are also "storage boilers" which operate on a similar 
priciple, but get *extremely* hot inside, and are then used to provide 
hot water for taps and radiators during the day.

I use economy 7 because I save money. But I also feel an environmentally 
friendly warm glow about it, because I believe is saves energy: it 
reduces the need for construction of additional generating capacity to 
meet peak demand.  (And yes it makes use of nuclear power which is hard 
to turn on and off quickly, but I don't like to think about that).

---

From: John Brooks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 12:45:26 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Tim Jebb
<[email-masked]> writes
>And if you eliminate the need for a gas supply, you no longer need to pay 
and the costs of pipes, chimney for heater, installation,...
>hot water for taps and radiators during the day.
...
>And yes it makes use of nuclear power which is hard 
>to turn on and off quickly, but I don't like to think about that)
Huh?  a nuclear reactor can be turned off very quickly indeed (a Scram).
But why would you want to, except following a fault?  The main reason
why nuclear power plants are always quoted as best for baseload
applications is because they run efficiently for long periods (unlike
some other plant types) and, yes, take a relatively long time to start
up and for a (normal) shut down.  Why should this be an issue for
concern?

---

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Debreil)
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 00:26:56 GMT

John Brooks <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In article <[email-masked]>, Catherine woodgold
><[email-masked]> writes
>>
>>at night and give off heat all day. 

We also have this in France. It is still in effect. I have subscribed to
such a contract (one has to pay a little extra on the monthly
subscription), and it pays back, even though I have nothing else than a
water heater that works at night (except for electric convectors who
also work at night as well as during daytime). I don't have any heat
storage apparatus, and I don't think these are worth the trouble and
extra cost at purchase. A heat storage apparatus that works with bricks,
costs about 4,000 FF, while you can find an ordinary electric convector
for about 400 FF. If you need 4 of these apparatus to heat your
apartment, the investment will come to 16,000 FF in one case, 1,600 FF
in the other. Besides, the storage heaters will have to be about 4.5
Kilowatts each, while the convectors will have to be only 1.5 Kw, since
the latter will have to be three times more powerful as the former, in
order to be able to produce in 8 hours as much heat as the former in 24
hours. Therefore, in the latter case, you will have to subscribe to an
expensive contrat that will allow you three times as many amps. These
more expensive monthly subscriptions will make up for the greatest part
of the difference in the cost of individual night time Kilowatthours.
The difference in the initial cost of purchase of the appliances will
make up for the rest. One then is left with only drawbacks: the storage
heaters are much heavier and cannot be moved easily without damage, they
are not as versatile as convectors, they will either provide too much
heat or not enough, leading to a lot of waste and of lack in confort...
So, I prefer ordinary convertors... Whatever I pay extra on the
kilowatthours unit price, I didn't pay in the initial investment and in
my monthly subscription. This also apply with natural gas heating
compared to electric heating: the basic unit in Calorie (BTU, Kw...) is
cheaper with gas than with electricity, but the basic investment is much
more, and you have maintainance costs that you don't have with
convectors. In my specific case, it would take up to 10 years until my
higher Kilowatthours costs would make up to the difference with gas,
and, by then, the gas appliances would probably have to be replaced,
while the electric convectors may last at least twice as much longer...

Bernard DEBREIL
---------------
Le Chesnay (France)
Home Page: http://www.teaser.fr/~bdebreil/
Chats possible through IRC or PowWow (in writing only)
email: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (John Phillips)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 15:03:07 GMT

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996 12:45:26 +0100, John Brooks
<[email-masked]> wrote:

Despite the fact that they seem to not have this problem when used on
ships or submarines,  commercial nuclear power plants cannot easily
regulate load in response to system needs.  I can't imagine a naval
vessel which cannot speed up or slow down.  What would happen with a
coliision which occurred because  a ship could not slow down to avoid
it.

In a power system which has a lot of nucler reactors, other means must
therefore be found to either contol load or respond to it.  It must be
noted also that large fossil fueled generators also start very slowly
and cannot rapidly change output.   A dual rate structure is an inept
technique which is more a political than an engineering solution  A
better approach is to install remotely controlled devices which
shutoff or defer hot water heating This is uneconomical, though when
compared with installing pump storage plants which can immediately be
srarted or regulated

Regards,

John Phillips
NYPA
Buffalo-Niagara Falls

My comments express only
my personal opinions

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Jebb)
Date: 14 Oct 1996 16:17:53 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked] says...

 >up and for a (normal) shut down.  Why should this be an issue for

The issue is that because normal startup and shutdown are relatively 
long, and because it's therefore more efficient to leave them running for 
a long time, and beacause using off peak power thus enables the efficient 
use of nuclear generated electricity it spoils my nice warm glow when 
thinking about the eco-friendliness off off peak electricity.

Clear?

---

From: [email-masked] (Tooie)
Date: 14 Oct 1996 22:51:50 GMT

John Phillips ([email-masked]) wrote:
: 
: Despite the fact that they seem to not have this problem when used on
: ships or submarines,  commercial nuclear power plants cannot easily
: regulate load in response to system needs.  I can't imagine a naval
: vessel which cannot speed up or slow down.  What would happen with a
: coliision which occurred because  a ship could not slow down to avoid
: it.

BWRs (as compared to PWRs) can load follow quite well by varying the 
flowrate through the core.  Plants can cycle from 60-100% on a 
daily basis.
: 
: In a power system which has a lot of nucler reactors, other means must
: therefore be found to either contol load or respond to it.  It must be
: noted also that large fossil fueled generators also start very slowly
: and cannot rapidly change output.   

Many fossil fuel plants (read coal) can load follow at the rate 
of 1-10%/min.  New control systems have lead to many of the 
improvements which would have impossible years ago.

: A dual rate structure is an inept
: technique which is more a political than an engineering solution  A
: better approach is to install remotely controlled devices which
: shutoff or defer hot water heating This is uneconomical, though when
: compared with installing pump storage plants which can immediately be
: srarted or regulated

Where do you put your pumped storage in Kansas?  

Cheers,

tooie

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul F. Dietz)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:41:25 GMT

>Where do you put your pumped storage in Kansas?  

Underground, although compressed air may be cheaper,
especially if you are burning something in combustion
turbines anyway.

You can also do some summer load leveling by making ice
at night to cool intake air for the turbines during the day.

	Paul

---

From: John Brooks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 18:11:39 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, John Phillips
<[email-masked]> writes
>coliision which occurred because  a ship could not slow down to avoid
I think you may be mixing 'rate-of-neutron-flux' with 'output-delivered-
to-grid'.  It's quite easy to dump energy if wasting it is not a problem
- in particular if you are surrounded by an unlimited heatsink (the
sea).  
This is quite different from adjusting the power level of a commercial
reactor optimised for high efficiency.  Why bother, if it has little
effect on the rate of fuel burnup - might even be the case that low
power level in a reactor actually reduces fuel life - nuclear engineers
please comment.
>compared with installing pump storage plants which can immediately be
Disagree that pumped storage could ever be more 'economical' than Demand
Side Management.  Noting that delivering power to the (often distant)
pumped storage site, pumping the water, then later generating from it
and redelivering the power incorporates horrendous transmission and
conversion losses (must total more than 50 precent), I would suggest
that any 'storage' system is only valuable as an alternative to dumping
the energy altogether.  Peak-shifting DSM is 100 percent efficient, so
long as the shifted peak exactly fills a trough.
It would be madness for a utility to fail to incorporate flexibility in
its total output level.  Load forecasting is another tool which will
(usually) minimises unnecessary spinning reserve.
I suspect that even Electricite de France (a big nuclear user) is not
overcommitted to nuclear to the extent that the output from nuclear has
to be managed inefficiently to meet FALLING demand.
...
>The main reason

---

From: John Brooks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 18:29:06 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Tim Jebb
<[email-masked]> writes
> >up and for a (normal) shut down.  Why should this be an issue for
Actually, it even more complex than that - because the fuel cost for a
nuclear reactor is a minor component of the total, the only 2
'economical' states may be on or off.  Since it then makes practically
no difference to operating costs whether the power level is 10 percent
or 90 percent, it might as well be kept at 90 percent, whatever the
actual demand.
>thinking about the eco-friendliness off off peak electricity.
Ah - now I get it.  You are actually ANTI-NUCLEAR (for some reason) and
the 'warm glow' disappears BECAUSE the power's from a nuclear source.
(Or maybe because you live in Sellafield (complex UK joke based on
unfortunate TV advert featuring a kid that glowed in the dark).)  
In 10 years or so, ask Friends of the Earth again what the most eco-
friendly form of power generation is (apart from direct 'natural'
sources - wind, water, solar).  You may get a surprising answer!
There is also of course the other issue - what would be the logic of NOT
maximising the use of an existing (nuclear) asset, if it makes no
practical difference to its total environmental impact.  You CANNOT
equate burnup of reactor fuel to (eg.) burning coal.

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Borowski)
Date: 15 Oct 1996 18:22:22 GMT

Brian Moffet ([email-masked]) wrote:

: Like I prefaced, this is from looking at them a decade ago in my physics 
: classes in college (university for the UK people :-) and I may have it 
: wrong.  Often times it makes more sense to use the generator, a nuclear one 
: or a diesel one, to charge a better delivery system like batteries.  Isn't 
: that how diesel trains are done as well?

No, in diesel-electric train engines, the generator powers the electric
motor directly.  In essence, the generator and motor combine to form a
continuously variable transmission.  There is no energy storage between
them.

There are batteries on these locomotives, but they are used to start
the diesel engine and power accesories like lights, radio, etc, much
like in an automobile.

---

From: [email-masked] (Brian Moffet)
Date: 15 Oct 1996 16:25:41 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
says...
>power level in a reactor actually reduces fuel life - nuclear engineers

If I remember correctly, and it's not because I worked on them, a nuclear 
submarine is using the generator to charge what woould be the equivilent of 
batteries.  The batteries act as a very large capacitor to buffer the 
generator from the load and usage peaks and valleys of the normal operation 
of the sub.  They don't actually tap directly off of the nuclear generator.

Like I prefaced, this is from looking at them a decade ago in my physics 
classes in college (university for the UK people :-) and I may have it 
wrong.  Often times it makes more sense to use the generator, a nuclear one 
or a diesel one, to charge a better delivery system like batteries.  Isn't 
that how diesel trains are done as well?

It would also make sense in a house as well, use off peak to charge 
batteries and use them to balance out the loads inside a house (pure 12 volt 
house anyone?)

Before responding, please check the newsgroups lines, I see that there are 3 
on it now, and I am sure sci.energy doesn't care to go through yet another 
"nuclear power is unsafe" thing.

brian moffet

---

From: JJP <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Oct 1996 04:21:49 GMT

>A dual rate structure is an inept
>technique which is more a political than an engineering solution  
>

Pricing is the ultimate tool in resource allocation. It is price that 
signals resource scarcity and resource value in a free market economy.

The entire movement towards unbundled and cost-based rates has very 
successfully resulted in a utility being able to transmit to customers 
the true cost of their resources.  Customers in turn make decisions to 
maximize their value of the energy product.  

In California, where I was an economist at a dual fuel utility at the 
time, the response to unbundling was immediate, widespread, massive and 
extremely beneficial to both customers, the utility and our service 
territory.  A number of customers increased their consumption 
dramatically when we reallocated revenue requirements in a more 
cost-based manner.  Other customers dropped off of artificially low 
standby rates when those rates increased dramatically.  Cogeneration was 
stopped dead by the new rates (all of the worthwhile cogeneration 
projects were already in place, what was left were "PURPA machines").

In short, proper pricing is the basis on which a free market operates.  
Those who question the ability of prices to allocate resources are 
questioning the very basis of the free market system.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Jebb)
Date: 17 Oct 1996 08:52:55 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, 
>Ah - now I get it.  You are actually ANTI-NUCLEAR

Well spotted!

> (for some reason)

The same reason that a lot of Ukrainians are less than happy about it. 

>the 'warm glow' disappears BECAUSE the power's from a nuclear source.

That's right.

>(Or maybe because you live in Sellafield

No - near Sizewell
 
>practical difference to its total environmental impact.

No logic. Warm glows are emotional not logical.

>   You CANNOT

Sorry I don't understand what your point is.

I would point out that I am also unhappy about burning coal AND oil, and 
am looking forward to the day when we get most of our energy from 
renewables.

---

From: Brendan Kirby <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Oct 1996 19:59:20 GMT

>Where do you put your pumped storage in Kansas?  

Same place you do in New Jersey and Cleveland, deep underground.

-- 

Brendan Kirby
Oak Ridge National Lab

[email-masked]

---

From: John Brooks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:37:36 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Tim Jebb
<[email-masked]> writes
>The same reason that a lot of Ukrainians are less than happy about it. 
don't forget Belarus, Sweden, Finland, Cumbria, etc... I think overall
we escaped quite lightly.
The Chernobyl disaster was caused by a combination of bad engineering,
bad training and human stupidity.  This is happening ALL THE TIME,
EVERYWHERE but only things like nuclear reactors, perceived as
threatening by many people, get the headlines.  With our 'civilisation'
as it is, there are many, many extraordinarily dangerous chemicals
released to atmosphere all the time.  eg. Gulf War syndrome ...
organophophorus ... sheep dip .... damaged farmers.
>>(Or maybe because you live in Sellafield
Your environment is probably much better monitored than mine. ;=)
>Sorry I don't understand what your point is.
a fuel rod contains a given amount of potential energy but the amount
that is actually produced as usable heat inside the reactor before the
rod needs to be changed varies according to the way the reactor is
operated.  ie. (I think) a reactor running at 100 percent of its design
output is 'using' less than twice the fuel it would use operating at 50
percent output for the same period.  Since I am not a nuclear engineer,
I hope someone else can provide the full facts.

>am looking forward to the day when we get most of our energy from 
Unless you want to revert to an agricultural economy (eg. UK population
10 - 15 million, life expectancy  45 years, quality of life:
unpleasant), you have to accept the need for large capacity energy
sources.  Sustainables / renewables alone cannot meet the requirement -
laws of physics get in the way.

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 19:24:10 +0100

> of the sub.  They don't actually tap directly off of the nuclear generator.

I don't know about this one, but If the pile produces heat, steam through a turbine
direct to the prop. seems more likely.
> that how diesel trains are done as well?
Diesel-electric trains use the power cable from an alternator(driven directly
by the engine) to several bogey mounted motors, as a form of flexible drive.
A locomotive has to have at least two bogeys to negotiate corners, and drive
to as many wheels as possible. Electric power cables are the best way to configure
the system.

> batteries and use them to balance out the loads inside a house (pure 12 volt 
The in-efficiency of the batteries etc, as well as power losses in the 12volt
system and the cost of much thicker wires, would out-weigh any cost savings.

The off-peak approach works best for time-shifting washing machines (and
other large loads that can operate un-attended) and to generate heat for 
release during the day. Insulation will reduce night losses (and a low level
heat is normally required during the night anyway) and converting electricity 
into heat is 99.9% efficient anyway.
It is a pity that we cannot simply return low-grade heat into electricity!

-- 
 ___ _    _                _ 
| _ (_)__| |_  __ _ _ _ __| |
|   / / _| ' \/ _` | '_/ _` |
|_|_\_\__|_||_\__,_|_| \__,_|
                             
Richard B.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tooie)
Date: 20 Oct 1996 14:05:55 GMT

John Phillips ([email-masked]) wrote:
: 
: >
: >BWRs (as compared to PWRs) can load follow quite well by varying the 
: >flowrate through the core.  Plants can cycle from 60-100% on a 
: >daily basis.
: >: 
: We own and operate one of each.  Neither plant has ever been able to
: perform  even minimal load changes. 

I assume you are referring to Fitz as your BWR.  I'm interested in *why* 
it has never "been able to perform even minimal load changes", which is 
false since power reductions for surveillances, rod pattern adjustments, 
etc. do take place.  Are you just referring to its load following 
ability?  Is this based on mechanical or economic reasons?

tooie

---

From: [email-masked] (John Phillips)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:24:01 GMT

>flowrate through the core.  Plants can cycle from 60-100% on a 
We own and operate one of each.  Neither plant has ever been able to
perform  even minimal load changes. 

>improvements which would have impossible years ago.

Of course,  fossil plants can, and always have,  followed load.  The
issue is at what cost in efficiency losses and equipment wear.  

>Where do you put your pumped storage in Kansas?  

The Taum Sauk Plant is in Missouri in the Ozark Mountains.

Regards,

John Phillips
NYPA
Buffalo-Niagara Falls

My comments express only
my personal opinions

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Jebb)
Date: 21 Oct 1996 12:37:47 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, 

>organophophorus ... sheep dip .... damaged farmers.

But radioactive contaminants can be much longer lived, being removed from 
the planet only by nuclear processes or spacecraft.

>laws of physics get in the way.

Do they? Which ones?

---

From: John Brooks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:53:25 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Tim Jebb
<[email-masked]> writes
>the planet only by nuclear processes or spacecraft.
yes, but..
the long-lived isotopes are (by definition) low activity and therefore
easy to store safely.  I would MUCH prefer to live beside a well-managed
low-level radioactive waste store than a field sprayed regularly with
pesticides.
>Sustainables / renewables alone cannot meet the requirement -
OK - just a few snags..: in the case of solar energy systems, the level
of energy which falls on each square metre of the Earth's surface (only
during daylight) and the theoretical (never mind practical) rate of
conversion of light to electricity.
        wind power: the average surface wind speed plus the theoretical
conversion efficiency of a wind turbine.  Work out how many turbines you
need to generate a Megawatt, some of the time, and weep!
        tidal / wave power: huge minimum strength of the structures
needed to recover enough useful energy AND withstand storm surges.
        energy from waste: control of dioxins, etc. produced
(inevitably) by the combustion process. Possible to remove but VERY
expensive.  Plus quantities of toxic ash and contaminated lime from
fluegas scrubbers. (In overall safety terms, I would much prefer to live
next to Sizewell than next to an EfW plant)
        biomass combustion: low energy density versus oil or compressed
natural gas, unwelcome by-products (as in EfW).
        hydro: limited siting options, also leading to long transmission
lines, reservoir silt-up (Aswan dam on the Nile is a particularly bad
example of this).
        geo-thermal: high corrosion rates due to high temperatures and
dissolved salts in collector pipework, leading to excessive downtime and
uneconomic repair costs.
Yes, OK - these are not strictly Laws of Physics but they all derive
>from  physical laws and the way the Earth and Solar system work.  There
is nothing you can do to change them.
In many of the sustainable energy calculations, the energy and
environmental costs of making and operating the conversion plants are
omitted.  Eg. what about the energy used and pollution caused by large-
scale refining of amorphous silicon for making into PV panels?  The cost
in raw materials and environmental damage of strings of windfarms?  The
damage caused when a large wave energy float breaks adrift in a storm
and gets driven ashore?  Environmental damage from enormous areas of
biomass monocultures? Subsidence and / or land damage caused by mining
operations? .....

If we want (or, right now, need) a civilisation with high energy
consumption, sustainable resources CANNOT deliver the quantities
required.  If you want to change human societies worldwide, to use low-
impact, agriculture-based economic systems, OK.  The first people you
will need to convince are politicians.  Given the number of votes in
negative growth forecasts, less rather than more of everything, etc.,
good luck!  I agree that such a scenario would be desirable but cannot
see any practical route to it, starting from where we are.  And, let's
face it, many politicians are unwilling / unable to even begin to get
their heads around the problem ('Global Warming is poppycock': T Gorman,
UK MP.)

Nuclear is one of the few sources which can deliver enough energy
without increasing CO2 output and rapidly stripping our remaining
reserves of coal, oil, gas.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul F. Dietz)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:56:15 GMT

>the planet only by nuclear processes or spacecraft.

Longer lived than, say, cadmium or arsenic pollution?  At least it
*does* decay.

	Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Jebb)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 08:53:54 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked] says...

>low-level radioactive waste store than a field sprayed regularly with

Oh yeah? Good. Have a lorry load of Plutonium at a half life of 3.76 x 
10^^5 years. A nice little Alpha emitter. But wear a handkerchief over 
your face on windy days.

>during daylight) 

1380 W/m^^2.  Total power falling on the earth all the time (sound of 
calculator buttons being pressed...) 3.5 * 10^^11 GW. I was hoping you'd 
cite conservation of energy...

and the theoretical (never mind practical) rate of
>conversion of light to electricity.

30% ish theoretical and 24% ish in the lab with lots of commercial 
systems between 7 and 18%

So these people who power their houses with Photovoltaic panels are 
imagining it are they?

>need to generate a Megawatt, some of the time, and weep!

Friends of the earth produced a paper showing that the UK could produce 
at least 20% of its electricity requirements from wind power (I think 
land based but I'll have to check. If so we also have to consider 
offshore windmills - there are some planned off Great Yarmouth). I'll 
re-read the paper and reproduce some of the arguments if you wish. I 
understand that wind power is now cheaper than anything else in the uk 
except gas (I'm not even THINKING about the other one - you know the one 
that starts with an N and turns you sterile).

>needed to recover enough useful energy AND withstand storm surges.

Engineering issues, with clever people busily solving them. Keep an eye 
on Osprey II.

>next to Sizewell than next to an EfW plant)

I tend to agree here. I also live near a cement factory, and they are 
planning to burning industrial waste (inks, solvents etc). But methane 
>from  waste is a pretty clean fuel - though probably not terribly 
significant in total energy terms.

>natural gas, unwelcome by-products (as in EfW).

I've never felt that biomass has a major future as a fuel.  But I did 
read a proposal recently for an ocean power generator which uses hot (at 
the top) and cold (further down) water for electricity generation, which 
also stimulates massive plankton growth which is then used to make 
synthetic crude oil and feed a lot of fish as well (not the same 
individual plankton obviously!)

>lines, reservoir silt-up (Aswan dam on the Nile is a particularly bad

Nevertheless an important contributor.

>dissolved salts in collector pipework, leading to excessive downtime and

But they use it in Iceland.

>Yes, OK - these are not strictly Laws of Physics 

This at least I can agree with.

>scale refining of amorphous silicon for making into PV panels?  

I understand that even mono-crystalline PVs can recoup the energy used in 
manufacture in one year (though I may be wrong - please correct me if 
anyone knows better).
The cost
>in raw materials and environmental damage of strings of windfarms?

Oh look at that clean windmill on that hill. Isn't it disgusting?

  The
>and gets driven ashore?  

Tut tut. We'll have to rake the sand again. Or just let the tide do it 
for us.

Environmental damage from enormous areas of
>biomass monocultures? 

Yes - these aren't an option. We need the food. But surely we can use the 
straw for something?

>Subsidence and / or land damage caused by mining
>operations? .....

? A wind turbine mine? There's plenty of scrap metal around already.

>see any practical route to it, starting from where we are.

I think we'll probably have to wait for price rises to encourage most 
politicians to wake up. But (astoundingly enough) it IS the tories who 
have set up the market so that renewables can at least get a toehold in 
uk electricity generation.

>  And, let's

T Gorman is barely human...

>reserves of coal, oil, gas.

Apart from the sun and the earth and the moon. Oh sorry, solar and 
geo-thermal are both nuclear. Sorry.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Jebb)
Date: 22 Oct 1996 08:15:04 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...

>Longer lived than, say, cadmium or arsenic pollution?  At least it

Arsenic and cadmium have always been here, as long as the planet. Many 
radioactive pollutants are manufactured in nuclear reactors - 
particularly the nastier ones. 

Not being a chemist I can't say for certain, but are there not relatively 
benign compounds of cadmium, arsenic etc?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 22 Oct 1996 13:35:24 +0200

> we escaped quite lightly.

That's right, but I would not like it to happen again.

> organophophorus ... sheep dip .... damaged farmers.

Yes, there are in fact many other problems which have much greater
negative effects, but the medias do not care about them.

> laws of physics get in the way.

I am living in an agricultural economy and it is quite nice, but you
are right - we need more energy for a long time before we can rely
only on renewables. What bothers me is that the efforts to use high
tech to use energy more efficiently are much too small. 

I'm no fanatic, but it would be possible to reduce energy waste
considerably if it was economically possible. As it is now you easily
get into troble if you try to produce without much energy. 

Nisse

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul F. Dietz)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:53:17 GMT

>particularly the nastier ones. 

Whether something is natural or not is not important -- what is
important is how toxic it is, and how much is released.  Arsenic and
cadmium are known toxins and carcinogens, even though they've been
around forever.

>benign compounds of cadmium, arsenic etc?

Sure, there are cadmium or arsenic compounds that are less toxic
than others.  But the same is true of plutonium.  Plutonium dioxide
is highly insoluble and not terribly dangerous in bulk form.  Arsenic
trioxide, when ingested by mouth, is something like 50 times as
toxic as plutonium dioxide, IIRC.

Cadmium pollution is a serious future problem.  Phosphate fertilizer
contains trace cadmium which is building up on farm land.  This will
begin to have serious effects in about a century (varies depending
on the phosphate deposit used.)

Incidently, phosphate is also one of the larger sources of
anthropogenic radiation exposure, from radium;  each year the global
dose from this radium is about 1/2 the total global dose that was
suffered from the Chernobyl accident.

Of course, that's natural radium, so it isn't dangerous, right?

	Paul

---

From: Nick Eyre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:32:39 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, "Paul F. Dietz"
<[email-masked]> writes
>anthropogenic radiation exposure, from radium;

The same can be said of uranium mill tailings - they have a much have
radon release rate.

>  each year the global

"Was" implies the collective dose has all been received, which is far
>from  true.

-- 
Nick Eyre

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul F. Dietz)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:57:22 GMT

>"Was" implies the collective dose has all been received, which is far

Excuse me: "1/2 the total global dose that has been or will be
suffered from the Chernobyl accident."

	Paul

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 23 Oct 1996 18:34:11 GMT

When it comes to cost, I think that the coal fired units have it all over the nukes. 
 Try looking at the REAL cost of the nukes, not just at the fuel costs.  Capital 
expenditures for a nuke far outweigh the costs associated with fossil plants.        
    Just my opinion.........P Cosenza           Any retort will be welcome

---

From: [email-masked] (Tooie)
Date: 24 Oct 1996 01:01:01 GMT

[email-masked] wrote:
:  When it comes to cost, I think that the coal fired units have it all 
:  over the nukes.  Try looking at the REAL cost of the nukes, not just 
:  at the fuel costs.  Capital expenditures for a nuke far outweigh the 
:  costs associated with fossil plants.    
:     Just my opinion.........P Cosenza           Any retort will be welcome

Fuel cost for the avg nuke is 6.26 $/MW-hr and coal is 15.44 $/MW-hr 
(1992 figures) however, total production costs are similar 21.61 $/MW-hr 
for nukes and 19.76 $/MW-hr for coal.  "Total cost", including taxes, 
debt, blah blah blah, I don't have although I know *some* nukes run 
about 40 $/MW-hr (I don't have averages at hand)

Of course the cost of nuclear includes decomissioning and spent fuel 
disposal.  Try adding those to coal (not to mention the environmental 
damage) and see what kind of numbers you come up with.  I appreciate your 
thoughts but a little research would do you good.

Cheers,

tooie

---

From: altavoz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 20:21:05 -0700

>     Just my opinion.........P Cosenza           Any retort will be welcome

altavoz : BILLIONS $$$ to dismantle a hot nuke plant .

---

From: Dan Evens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:51:15 -0400

> So these people who power their houses with Photovoltaic panels are

Actually, that's 7% to 18% of available light at peak brightness.
Available light is far less than half that 1380 averaged over time.
As a percentage of that 1380 W/m^2, it is much closer to 1% for
commercial sized demonstration sites.  This includes storage and
re-conversion losses, but not transmission losses.

So, to get your house serviced equivalently to the typical 200 amp
service using solar would require something like 2000 m^2 of
collector surface.  Not many houses that big.  Especially not
many houses have roofs that can tilt properly to take advantage
of sunlight to optimum levels.

Yes, they probably are imagining it. Or ignoring the fact that
they still buy a lot of electricity from their local utility,
and that they still have a hookup that supplies their peak
demands. Things like light during the night or during cloudy
periods, or extra power for their air conditioner or water
heater in whether extremes.

-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.

My usual and customary fee for bouncing unwanted junk e-mail
advertising is $500 U.S. per message. Sending me such e-mail
is a contract which acknowledges and accepts my fee schedule.
Dan Evens

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Jebb)
Date: 23 Oct 1996 14:11:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...

>cadmium are known toxins and carcinogens, even though they've been

Yes, but all you can do with them is nothing - ie stop spreading them 
around. With plutonium etc you can stop making it in the first place. It 
didn't exist before we made it.

>toxic as plutonium dioxide, IIRC.

I presume you are referring to chemical toxicity. Making it into a 
compound will have no effect on its radioactive toxicity. Or have I 
misunderstood you?

And we can destroy arsenic trioxide.

>on the phosphate deposit used.)

This is an argument for controlling the cadmium content of fertiliser, 
rather than that eg plutonium is safe.

>suffered from the Chernobyl accident.

Is this the total dose from the radium from Chernobyl, or the total dose 
>from  all Chernobyl fallout?

Also, the Ukrainians are suffering a lot more than this!

>Of course, that's natural radium, so it isn't dangerous, right?

Now you know I didn't say that, don't you?

---

From: "Bill Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Oct 1996 04:44:57 GMT

> snippety-snip
I do believe that was meant as sarcasm :}

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:18:27 GMT

the coal costs alredy include those figures, same as the nuke.  Difference is, nukes 
are much more costly to de-com and spent fuel is a cost not encountered with fossil.

---

From: [email-masked] (Patrick Reid)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:15:25 GMT

[Posted to sci.energy]

>Also, the Ukrainians are suffering a lot more than this!

The only reason that the Ukrainians are suffering from Chernobyl is:

1) unnecessary relocations (the land they were forced to move from has
an average background dose which is about equal to the average
background in France and Spain)

2) Thyroid cancers in many young children, which have claimed 3 lives
in the 10 years since Chernobyl. This is due to dose recieved
immediately after the accident, BTW; moving back to their original
towns, farms and vilages wouldn't hurt them a bit, and mught hep since
going home would greatly reduce the stress these people are under.

Note that I am not advocating a return to Pripyat. I do not know what
the dose levels there are; they may be OK, or they may not, but I'm
not sure.

Note also that those 3 deaths due to thyroid cancer is the total death
toll _in the general public_ thus far from Chernobyl. Some people died
in the immediate accident (31 plant workers) and another 11 of these
plant workers have died from cancer since (these cancers may have been
caused by dose recieved during the accident).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid                  | e-mail: [email-masked]              |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated  | Voice:  (506) 674-9099             |
| Saint John, NB, Canada        | Fax:    (506) 674-9197             |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul F. Dietz)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 23:18:01 GMT

>compound will have no effect on its radioactive toxicity. Or have I 

You've misunderstood.  The chemical state of a radioactive
substance can have a great effect on its toxicity, by controlling
how quickly it is excreted from the body.  Plutonium dixoxide,
being insoluble, passes throught the digestive system in a short
time.  Soluble plutonium salts, if ingested, would be much more
toxic.  Also: the damage caused by plutonium to the body is
due to its radioactivity, not due to its chemical toxicity.

>And we can destroy arsenic trioxide.

You can't destroy the arsenic; the plutonium does eventually
go away by itself.

	Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Tooie)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 00:59:54 GMT

altavoz ([email-masked]) wrote:
: 
: BILLIONS $$$ to dismantle a hot nuke plant .

Wrong as usual, the latest figures I saw for WNP-2 were all roughly $135 
million (1993 figures, look up the NUREG for yourself).  If the cost of 
decomissioning is included in the cost of the power, and that power is 
still cost competitive, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Cheers,

tooie

---

From: [email-masked] (Magnus Redin)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 08:12:51 GMT

[email-masked] (Tooie) writes:

> Wrong as usual, the latest figures I saw for WNP-2 were all roughly
> $135 million (1993 figures, look up the NUREG for yourself). If the
> cost of decomissioning is included in the cost of the power, and
> that power is still cost competitive, it doesn't really matter, does
> it?

Its not impossible to handle the hot parts. ABB clearly proved that
when they renovated the reactor vessel of Oskarshamn 1 in Sweden. They
etched away the top layer of the inside of the reactor vessel, used a
radiation shield covering the parts of the walls they were not working
on and had overpreassure suits to not get any particles on them if
some were loosened from the vessel. With that they had people working
by hand at the bottom of a reactor vessel that had been operating for
20 years.

Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  [email-masked]
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600

---

From: MR P M CONNOR <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:09:31 -0800

> altavoz : BILLIONS $$$ to dismantle a hot nuke plant .

I think its probably $100's of millions per reactor actually (which is 
not to say I approve), however there are many external costs of coal 
derived power that are not included in the price in most locations, for 
example, greenhouse gas emissions, associated health problems, 
contaminated land, etc.  Energy and carbon taxes on fossil fuel derived 
heat and power go some way to balancing these costs and helping to give a 
more accurate measure of the true costs of their impacts but their 
application still has a lot of ground to make up.

Peter Connor

---

From: "Mitchell Heldt" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Nov 1996 02:31:21 GMT

MR P M CONNOR <[email-masked]> wrote in article
<[email-masked]>...

> contaminated land, etc.  Energy and carbon taxes on fossil fuel derived 

I remember in geology class that the professor said a lot of coal has
traces of uranium in it from contamination during or after deposition.  Has
anyone else confirmed this.  If it's true, does coal contaminate
radioactively when burned?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 1 Nov 1996 12:37:06 GMT

Yes coal does have TRACE elements, one of which may be U.  Coal ash is treated as low 
level hazardous waste and must be deposited in a lined landfill with monitoring (at 
least here in PA)

---

From: Dan Evens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 10:54:03 -0500

> radioactively when burned?

Yes it is true, and yes coal does contaminate radioactively
when burned.  There are other chemicals besides U which are
found in trace amounts in coal and which are radioactive.

However, before you go screaming down the hall, you should
compare the relative levels of harm from various things.
You, for example, are also radioactive to a small degree.
All things are.

---

From: [email-masked] (Brad Wartman)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 23:30:54 GMT

Coal contains lots of dirty trace elements such as uranium, arsenic,
selenium, and more. Studies of England during the Industrial
Revolution showed dramatic increases in disease (e.g., cancer) after
the burning of coal was introduced. The fly ash generated at
coal-fired power stations is generally considered to be a low-level
hazardous waste.

---

From: David Weinstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 23:55:18 +0000

In article <01bbc79c$c1e5f780$804246cf@hobbs>, Mitchell Heldt
<[email-masked]> writes
>radioactively when burned?
Yep, and from what I've heard, its even worse than a nuke plant (barring
accidents)
-- 
David Weinstein

Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

---

From: David Weinstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 12:13:23 +0000

>You, for example, are also radioactive to a small degree.
        Sleeping with a partner increases your chance of cancer -albeit
very little and the benefits are far greater :) 
-- 
David Weinstein

Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: altavoz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 20:21:05 -0700

---

From: Dan Evens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:51:15 -0400

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Jebb)
Date: 23 Oct 1996 14:11:05 GMT

---

From: "Bill Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Oct 1996 04:44:57 GMT

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:18:27 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Patrick Reid)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:15:25 GMT

[Posted to sci.energy]

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul F. Dietz)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 23:18:01 GMT

Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Tooie)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 00:59:54 GMT

Cheers,

tooie

---

From: [email-masked] (Magnus Redin)
Date: 29 Oct 1996 08:12:51 GMT

Regards,

---

From: MR P M CONNOR <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:09:31 -0800

Peter Connor

---

From: "Mitchell Heldt" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Nov 1996 02:31:21 GMT

---

From: Dan Evens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 10:54:03 -0500

---

From: [email-masked] (Brad Wartman)
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 23:30:54 GMT

---

From: David Weinstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 23:55:18 +0000

---

From: David Weinstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 12:13:23 +0000