Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Michael . Dillon]

>It'd
>be cheaper to move the entire carrier hotel to the "safe" area and forget
>having offsite power.

Exactly!

If you are going to solve the redundant services problem (power and 
cooling) with some kind of regional power and cooling network, then it 
makes sense to cluster the various organizations who need these services 
in the same area. Therefore, we should be thinking about how we can move 
carrier hotels to be near major hospitals.

And if you think that clustering defeats the idea of distributing your 
assets, I am not suggesting that there should be only one cluster in a 
metropolitan area. Just as there are several major hospitals, there should 
be several carrier hotels.

-- Michael Dillon

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[David Lesher]

I called a friend still in the business. He's not
been an operator for decades, but he specs the following:

Kero/JetA:  110-120F
#2 Heat 120F
#2 Diesel   >120F, he recalls 125 but won't swear
to that number.



That said, the military had their own brews. USAF used to use nasty
JP4, it being laced with tolune and naptha. The Navy would not touch
the stuff, not wanting low flash stuff inside a carrier. They used
JP5, which ISTM is higher temp JetA. 

The AF has since wised up and gone to JP8, which I believe is
almost identical to JetA. Exception {past} -- the Blackbird used
JP7, much thicker {"3 in 1 oil" feel, I'm told.} and higher flash.

In any case, there is no practical difference in a building tank
housing any of the top three. 

Regarding the pressure difference issue The tank by the generator
[aka "day tank"] is filled from below. If you have a 30 story building,
with a roof generator, that's ~~150psi. 

If the line ruptures on floor 3
One approach is coaxial lines: the inner is the high pressure "up"
line; the outer the overflow return. If the inner ruptures, it will
be into the outer








-- 
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead20915-1433

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Alex Rubenstein]

Yes. There is a good sized one, man-made, only 20-odd miles from me.

It is called Yards Creek, it is in Blairstown, NJ -- where I grew up
coindentally.

http://www.pseg.com/customer/usgeneration.html

bu specifically, http://www.pseg.com/companies/power/pdf/factsheets/yards_creek.pdf

"The Yards Creek Generating Station is a 400 MW pumped-storage hydro plant
located five miles northeast of the Delaware Water Gap in Warren County,
NJ.

PSEG began studying pumped storage in 1947 and the technology had advanced
by 1956 to make this type of project feasible. Yards Creek was completed
in 1965.

Yards Creek has two reservoirs separated in elevation by 700 feet. When
electricity demand is low and electricity is inexpensive (mainly nights
and weekends), water is pumped from the lower reservoir to the upper
reservoir. When demand and prices for electricity are high, water is
allowed to flow from the upper to lower reservoir. On its way, the water
turns three, 140 MW generators. The generators are actually reversible
pump turbines that act as motors in one direction and generators in the
other.

[...]"

All in all, in accounts for a very small amount of the power needs in NJ;
NJ needs about 2600 MWatts of juice, and this supplies 400 during peak
only -- remember, it doesn't generate, it stores.


More off topic stuff: while searching google for this info, i searched for
'yards creek gpu', and many of the first 10 hits were 'confidential'
documents from pjm.com.. Interesting reading.






On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Vadim Antonov wrote:

>
>
> Just to keep it off-topic :)  The kinetic water-based accumulating
> stations actually do exist, though they use elevated reservoirs to store
> the water.  The water is pumped up during off-peak hours, and then
> electricity is generated during peaks.  This is not common, though,
> because most energy sources can be throttled to save fuel, or to
> accumulate in-flowing water naturally.  However, I think we will see more
> of those accumulating stations augmenting green energy sources (wind,
> solar, geothermal, tidal) which have erratic performance on shorter time
> scales, unless things like very large supercapacitors or hydrolizers/fuel
> cells become a lot cheaper.
>
> In some cases accumulating stations are useful in places remote from any
> regular power sources because they can minimize energy loss in long
> transmission lines (it is proportional to current squared, while delivered
> power is linear to the current).
>
> --vadim
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, blitz wrote:
>
> > One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get
> > up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge
> > pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100%
> > efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it
> > in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals
> > (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all
> > moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.
>

-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben --
--Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net   --

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Daniel Senie]

At 06:57 PM 11/19/2002, Jim Hickstein wrote:


A steam-generating plant I once toured (another story) used number _six_ 
fuel oil.  I asked, "Is that the stuff that comes in blocks?"  I thought I 
was being funny.  The reply: it's delivered and kept hot in an underground 
tank, else it "starts to get kind of glassy".

The building where I lived in NYC when in high school switched from using 
Con Edison steam to boilers and oil storage. My father oversaw the project 
for the co-op board. The system ran on #6 diesel. It's even worse than you 
thought...

System had to be started on #2 fuel oil. Once running on #2, the boilers 
were able to apply heat to the warming coils in the fuel storage tanks. The 
fuel must be kept warm or it becomes the consistency of jelly.

The boilers can NEVER be shut down now. There are multiple boilers so at 
least one should always be able to heat the tanks.

Oh, and you have to be careful to monitor the temperature at which the oil 
is delivered. If the temperature is wrong, you can be over or under charged 
for the oil (delivered by the gallon, metered at the truck, temperature 
affects volume).

This is NOT the oil you want to use for your generator.

My vote is for natural gas, which is easy to obtain in the street in NYC. 
If the gas lines get interrupted, what are the chances your fiber ducts are 
still intact? Gas has no on-site storage, cleaner burning, etc.

On the water storage subject, every building over a few stories has water 
storage. Street pressure will get you 6 stories at best. Past that, you 
need pumps. Tanks are filled by pumps in the basement, and the water used 
for domestic purposes. Some buildings have the hot water generation on the 
roof too, along with the expansion tanks. When pipes burst in the walls 
(happens too often in the building where I grew up) it's really a mess. 
Power failures suck, as you wind up without water.

Are we far enough from a topic yet?

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Jim Hickstein]

--On Tuesday, November 19, 2002 13:43 -0500 blitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

Fuel cells, run on natural gas are the best idea I've heard to date, and
the safest if you're confined to upper floors, but youre talking BIG $$$

^^

here...


Except in earthquake-prone regions, where the mandatory pendulum cutoff 
valve will probably trip in the same moment when your utility power goes 
out.  Useful for some emergencies, but not others.  BTDT.

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Jim Hickstein]

A steam-generating plant I once toured (another story) used number _six_ 
fuel oil.  I asked, "Is that the stuff that comes in blocks?"  I thought I 
was being funny.  The reply: it's delivered and kept hot in an underground 
tank, else it "starts to get kind of glassy".

Might be just the thing.

Also, today's oil tanker under 11,000 feet of the Atlantic ocean may not 
leak much after all, according to one source, if it hits cold water.  I 
don't know if this ship was carrying number six, but it's plausible.

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Petri Helenius]

>
> Diesel can even exstinguish flame in some cases.  It is a much different
> anamal than aircraft fuel.

There is no single thing as "aircraft fuel". Commercial jet aircraft are usually
fueled
with Jet A1 which has a flashpoint of 38´C (100´F). So it does not take that
much
to get it going. For less flammable alternative, use JP5, which has a flashpoint
of
60´C and is generally used on shipboard military operations.

If you´d like extra margin on your diesel safety, order JP5 instead of the usual
junk.

Pete

>
> There are concerns yes but not a good compairison.
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote:
>
> >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html
> > ...
> > > While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject
> > > of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the
> > > particular building.
> > >
> > > On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
> >
> > The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to
> > the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC.
> > Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
> >
> > --
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collaborative Intrusion Detection
> >  join http://www.dshield.org
> >
>
>

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[David Charlap]

Barry Shein wrote:


Before we get too, too, smug about this if you view the Manhattan
skyline, particularly downtown (e.g., SOHO/Tribeca) you'll see
house-sized water tanks on many, many buildings, particularly 3-10
story older buildings. I assume due to inadequate water pressure but I
honestly don't know why they're there, but they're all over.

I don't know if they're quite large enough for the proposed use, but
their existence would seem to defy most of the objections asserted
below.


It's my understanding that these tanks exist for the purpose of 
providing adequate water pressure for residential use (e.g. showers, 
faucets, toilets, etc.)  I don't think they could possible hold even a 
small fraction of the water necessary for emergency power generation.

-- David

RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Eric Germann]

To close this out, look for information on the Tennessee Valley Authority's
Racoon Mountain Pumped Storage Facility.  Take top off mountain, make
reservoir on top, drill shaft down to base of mountain, put generators with
discharge to a lower reservoir.  Its called a peaking plant.  Drain the top
reservoir during peak times and produce electricity.  Cool thing is, the
generators can be reversed and become pumps to pump the water back up the
mountain during off peak hours.


Without going into how fossil fuel fired generation desires to run at a
relatively constant level and has minimum loading requirements below which
it cannot stabley operate at, and hey you can't store the power, so they use
it off peak.  Unlike your house or our bandwidth, within the industry, power
costs fluctuate over the course of the day.  So they take advantage of it.
Closest thing to storing electricity thats possible.  Even though pumping
consumes more power than the falling water produces, the drastic cost
differential over the course of the day makes it economically viable.

On the flip side, their reservoirs are not hundreds of gallons, but hundreds
of acres.  One of the interesting design problems they had to overcome was
how to keep the top reservoir from swirling like a bathtub when all the
generators were online.  And when they open the rather large valves
(measured in tens of feet) for the tunnels, the mountain tends to shake. a
little, at least when you're in the mountain.

Fascinating place to tour.  It was about 15 years ago.  Don't know if they
still do tours, but the geek factor was pretty high if you're into that kind
of thing.  IIRC, they're somewhere in the vicinity Oak Ridge.  We took a bus
ride from ORNL to there for a day tour.

Eric


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Vadim Antonov
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:15 PM
> To: blitz
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address
>
>
>
>
> Just to keep it off-topic :)  The kinetic water-based accumulating
> stations actually do exist, though they use elevated reservoirs to store
> the water.  The water is pumped up during off-peak hours, and then
> electricity is generated during peaks.  This is not common, though,
> because most energy sources can be throttled to save fuel, or to
> accumulate in-flowing water naturally.  However, I think we will see more
> of those accumulating stations augmenting green energy sources (wind,
> solar, geothermal, tidal) which have erratic performance on shorter time
> scales, unless things like very large supercapacitors or hydrolizers/fuel
> cells become a lot cheaper.
>
> In some cases accumulating stations are useful in places remote from any
> regular power sources because they can minimize energy loss in long
> transmission lines (it is proportional to current squared, while
> delivered
> power is linear to the current).
>
> --vadim
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, blitz wrote:
>
> > One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water
> doesn't get
> > up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge
> > pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100%
> > efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also,
> add heating it
> > in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid,
> decontamination chemicals
> > (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the
> summer) Its all
> > moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.
>
>

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:54:21 EST, Barry Shein said:
> Before we get too, too, smug about this if you view the Manhattan
> skyline, particularly downtown (e.g., SOHO/Tribeca) you'll see
> house-sized water tanks on many, many buildings, particularly 3-10
> story older buildings. I assume due to inadequate water pressure but I
> honestly don't know why they're there, but they're all over.

They're there only to guarantee enough water pressure to make the
sinks work on the 30th floor, and to make sure you have enough water
to flush the toilets even if the supply goes belly-up.  That's a long
way from using it as a power source - take a look at the spillway of a
hydro dam sometime.

Incidentally, plumbing a high-rise is non-trivial - the naive approach
causes a pressure differential of 14PSI for every 32 feet, which means
if you have enough pressure to make water come out on the 60th floor,
the first-floor bathrooms have 250PSI water. ;)




msg06897/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Vadim Antonov]

Just to keep it off-topic :)  The kinetic water-based accumulating
stations actually do exist, though they use elevated reservoirs to store
the water.  The water is pumped up during off-peak hours, and then
electricity is generated during peaks.  This is not common, though,
because most energy sources can be throttled to save fuel, or to
accumulate in-flowing water naturally.  However, I think we will see more
of those accumulating stations augmenting green energy sources (wind,
solar, geothermal, tidal) which have erratic performance on shorter time
scales, unless things like very large supercapacitors or hydrolizers/fuel
cells become a lot cheaper.

In some cases accumulating stations are useful in places remote from any 
regular power sources because they can minimize energy loss in long 
transmission lines (it is proportional to current squared, while delivered 
power is linear to the current).

--vadim

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, blitz wrote:

> One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get 
> up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge 
> pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100% 
> efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it 
> in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals 
> (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all 
> moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.

RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Deepak Jain]

Water towers/tap water depend entirely on the amount of heat you are trying
to lose divided by the amount of space you have to lose it in. I am sure
some colos can just open the windows (if they have any) and run some fans.
:)

DJ

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Mikael Abrahamsson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 4:56 PM
> To: Deepak Jain
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address
>
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> > Some facilities (Terremark comes to mind) offer chilled water
> from the local
> > power company so you don't need to have your own chillers. What
> is the fault
> > tolerance requirement for a power-company chiller plant though?
>
> We use chilled water (4-8 C) with regular tap water as a backup (separate
> system). We have a water tower nearby, they say they can give us very high
> probability that any one of these two will provide cooling at any given
> time. As far as I know none of them have failed during the past two years
> of operation.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>

RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:

> Some facilities (Terremark comes to mind) offer chilled water from the local
> power company so you don't need to have your own chillers. What is the fault
> tolerance requirement for a power-company chiller plant though?

We use chilled water (4-8 C) with regular tap water as a backup (separate
system). We have a water tower nearby, they say they can give us very high
probability that any one of these two will provide cooling at any given
time. As far as I know none of them have failed during the past two years
of operation.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Barry Shein]

Before we get too, too, smug about this if you view the Manhattan
skyline, particularly downtown (e.g., SOHO/Tribeca) you'll see
house-sized water tanks on many, many buildings, particularly 3-10
story older buildings. I assume due to inadequate water pressure but I
honestly don't know why they're there, but they're all over.

I don't know if they're quite large enough for the proposed use, but
their existence would seem to defy most of the objections asserted
below.

On November 19, 2002 at 13:43 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (blitz) wrote:
 > 
 > One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get 
 > up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge 
 > pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100% 
 > efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it 
 > in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals 
 > (cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all 
 > moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.
 > 
 > 
 > Next:
 > 
 > You cant store large amounts of propane inside an occupied building, I cant 
 > imagine any FD allowing it. We had an example in a nearby city some years 
 > ago, a 500 gallon propane tank leaked  and exploded inside a brick 
 > building, leveled a city block and killed 12 firefighters. Nahh...
 > 
 > Fuel cells, run on natural gas are the best idea I've heard to date, and 
 > the safest if you're confined to upper floors, but youre talking BIG $$$ 
 > here...whats wrong with batteries, a natural gas genny and a converter 
 > system, telco style? If this is all about diesel storage, why not put the 
 > tanks/gennys in the basement or lower more secure floors? (Im assuming 
 > burial is out of the question in NYC) That way a small day tank would 
 > suffice at the upper floors.
 > 
 > Marc
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > >Now, figure out how many kw you need to run a telecom hotel, and you'll
 > >know just how large your tank needs to be (and how much weight the
 > >building structure is going to have to support).  Even if you assume
 > >100% efficiency, the tank is still going to me, um, rather largish.
 > >
 > > -- Brett

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202| Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World  | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Alex Rubenstein]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Richard Irving wrote:

>
> Don't laugh too hard at this "stored energy" idea...
>
>   We back up ~2500 Kva with a -=Flywheel=- System!
>
> (And Generator)
>
> CAT-UPS, don't leave home without it.  :)


Unless of course, the flywheel leaves your home when the bearings sieze.




-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben --
--Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net   --

RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Deepak Jain]

>
> P.S. What if the colo facility offered built-in water chillers
> for cooling
> with all the water piped downhill, down the block to a cooling tower?
> Would this be better or safer than existing systems? Could it possibly be
> built this way without municipal government involvement?

Some facilities (Terremark comes to mind) offer chilled water from the local
power company so you don't need to have your own chillers. What is the fault
tolerance requirement for a power-company chiller plant though?

Deepak Jain
AiNET

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "blitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Right now, people put the generators and the fuel in the same building
> >because it is virtually impossible to install your own neighborhood power
> >cabling. But there are few disaster scenarios in which a PoP would be
> >undamaged at the same time as the nearby powerstation is out of action or
> >disconnected.
>
> Transformer failure, underground cable failure, water main failure, street
> collapse, all come to mind.

We're all too familiar with backhoes taking out our fiber, now they're going
to take out our "on-site" power backup as well?  No thanks.

> If the entire town goes dark, most customers are dark as well.

Arguable.  Your POP may be many miles away from your customers, who aren't
seeing any power problems at all.  Widespread power outages are rare; it's
much more common for a few blocks here and there to lose power, whether from
rotating blackouts or severe weather.  Let's give the electric folks a
little credit here.

> Problem is there isn't a whole lot of new planned building going on, most
> "hotels' are retrofits of older structures, their location such because of
> their proximity to the customer base/infrastructure. Youre stuck with
> what's available, and then limited by the particular building's design
etc.
> In an ideal world there would be redundant power, water, sewer, fuel,
> served at two or more entrance points at each building, everyone would
> connect to each other via multiple access points on opposite sides of
their
> buildings..everything else is a mitigation of the lack of  a perfect
solution.

Agreed.  Every carrier "hotel" I've seen (admittedly few for this audience)
is an older office building which has been gradually overtaken by telcos
looking for cheap floor space in downtown areas.  Adding redundant fuel,
water, sewer, electric entrances, plus somehow shipping all that stuff
across town to "safe" areas no longer meets the economic constraints.  It'd
be cheaper to move the entire carrier hotel to the "safe" area and forget
having offsite power.

S

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "blitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fuel cells, run on natural gas are the best idea I've heard to date, and
> the safest if you're confined to upper floors, but youre talking BIG $$$
> here...whats wrong with batteries, a natural gas genny and a converter
> system, telco style? If this is all about diesel storage, why not put the
> tanks/gennys in the basement or lower more secure floors? (Im assuming
> burial is out of the question in NYC) That way a small day tank would
> suffice at the upper floors.

A fuel cell is just a generator: H2 goes in one side, electricity and H2O
come out the other side -- the trick is doing this without internal
combustion.  You'll either need pressurized H2 storage tanks or a fuel
reformer to extract H2 from your methane/propane/whatever utility; that's a
bit more complicated than storing diesel or feeding utility gas straight
into a normal generator.

Otherwise, a fuel cell has the exact same design parameters as a diesel
generator for a high-rise application:  store the fuel wherever code allows,
feed it into a generator, and carry the power up to your battery plant.

S

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[blitz]

This is a good example of an area where governments can intervene and do
some good.


Ugh..I contend they never improve a situation, only make it worse.



1. Local governments can prohibit fuel storage and generators at telecom
sites.


Telecom/Datacom sites would leave. period. You would be at a distinct 
disadvantage to the providers who DID have backup power. You would leave 
just after your customers did.


2. Local governments can make it easy for telecom site operators to set up
local generators and store fuel at sites that are near the telecom sites
but not too near.


You have to run either fuel lines or power cables, take your choice. 
Imagine the local's reaction to a "Im going to build a big noisy diesel 
generator plant, right,...here..."
I'd imagine in dense build situations like NYC its really hard to do 
anything more than is being done. This of course cries for decentralization 
and moving out and running rings.


Right now, people put the generators and the fuel in the same building
because it is virtually impossible to install your own neighborhood power
cabling. But there are few disaster scenarios in which a PoP would be
undamaged at the same time as the nearby powerstation is out of action or
disconnected.


Transformer failure, underground cable failure, water main failure, street 
collapse, all come to mind. Most failures are of the more pedestrian types. 
If the entire town goes dark, most customers are dark as well.

 If the local power cable takes a different route from the
power utility's cable then backhoe disease is avoided. If the local
powerstation blows up, we are happy because the PoP is still running on
utility power unlike the current situation.

In fact, a single municipality could plan this as an integral part of
their telecom infrastructure so that there are multiple telecom hotels
spread far enough apart to avoid fate sharing and each one of them could
be served by two local power stations, each of which serves several
telecom hotels. These would also be spread apart to avoid fate sharing
with utility power substations and cabling.


Problem is there isn't a whole lot of new planned building going on, most 
"hotels' are retrofits of older structures, their location such because of 
their proximity to the customer base/infrastructure. Youre stuck with 
what's available, and then limited by the particular building's design etc.
In an ideal world there would be redundant power, water, sewer, fuel, 
served at two or more entrance points at each building, everyone would 
connect to each other via multiple access points on opposite sides of their 
buildings..everything else is a mitigation of the lack of  a perfect solution.


If you were offered a colo facility that supplied AC power from one
utility and two local generator substation sources, would you rate this
better or worse than a colo facility that contained its own in-house
generators and fuel storage tanks?


Unless the costs/difficulty of providing multiple connections to different 
substations goes dramatically down for some reason, you're going to be 
stuck with the incumbent power provider and a genny. Local control over 
your means of backup power generation, for maintenance and reliability is 
always preferential. If it doesn't work, and its my fault, its one thing, 
if it doesn't work when I need it and its someone else's job to provide it, 
all that happens is shysters get rich.

P.S. What if the colo facility offered built-in water chillers for cooling
with all the water piped downhill, down the block to a cooling tower?
Would this be better or safer than existing systems? Could it possibly be
built this way without municipal government involvement?


Doubt it. Any time major construction of that type comes into play, 
municipalities want their piece.

Marc

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Richard Irving]

Don't laugh too hard at this "stored energy" idea...

  We back up ~2500 Kva with a -=Flywheel=- System!

(And Generator)

CAT-UPS, don't leave home without it.  :)


"Yesterday's Ludicrous Fiction is Tomorrow's Reality!"

blitz wrote:
> 
> One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[David Howe]

at Tuesday, November 19, 2002 6:43 PM, blitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
seen to say:
> One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water
> doesn't get up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your
> costs of huge pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less
> than 100% efficiency in converting falling water to electricity.
> Also, add heating it in the winter to keep it liquid instead of
> solid, decontamination chemicals (cant have any Leigonella bacillus
> growing in there in the summer) Its all moot, as the weight factor
> makes this a non-starter.

Nah, you just have to think about placement; find a convenient
reservoir, dig a big hole in the stone to one side of the dam, and put
your datacenter there.

now, about that anti-flooding insurance :)

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[blitz]

One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get 
up there to the reservoir on the roof by itself, add your costs of huge 
pumps, plus the cost of pumping it up there, and a less than 100% 
efficiency in converting falling water to electricity. Also, add heating it 
in the winter to keep it liquid instead of solid, decontamination chemicals 
(cant have any Leigonella bacillus growing in there in the summer) Its all 
moot, as the weight factor makes this a non-starter.


Next:

You cant store large amounts of propane inside an occupied building, I cant 
imagine any FD allowing it. We had an example in a nearby city some years 
ago, a 500 gallon propane tank leaked  and exploded inside a brick 
building, leveled a city block and killed 12 firefighters. Nahh...

Fuel cells, run on natural gas are the best idea I've heard to date, and 
the safest if you're confined to upper floors, but youre talking BIG $$$ 
here...whats wrong with batteries, a natural gas genny and a converter 
system, telco style? If this is all about diesel storage, why not put the 
tanks/gennys in the basement or lower more secure floors? (Im assuming 
burial is out of the question in NYC) That way a small day tank would 
suffice at the upper floors.

Marc



Now, figure out how many kw you need to run a telecom hotel, and you'll
know just how large your tank needs to be (and how much weight the
building structure is going to have to support).  Even if you assume
100% efficiency, the tank is still going to me, um, rather largish.

-- Brett

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Scott Granados wrote:

> Diesel can even exstinguish flame in some cases.  It is a much different
> anamal than aircraft fuel.

 is a nice
document describing the different properties of different fuels. I quote 
some from it that seems relevant:

The flash point is the minimum temperature at which the liquid will give
off sufficient vapor to form an ignitable mixture with air. Gasoline is
very dangerous because of its low flash point of –45ºF (- 43C).

Substance   Classification* Flash Point Vapor Density**
GasolineFlammable Liquid-45o F. 3-4
Propane Flammable Liquid-156o F.1.56 @ 32o F.
Ethanol Flammable Liquid55o F.  1.6
MethanolFlammable Liquid52o F.  1.1
Turpentine  Flammable Liquid95o F   4.8
KeroseneCombustible Liquid  100o F. 4.5
Diesel  Fuel Combustible Liquid 125o F. >1
Safety Solvent  Combustible Liquid  100-140o F. 4.8
Paint Thinner   Combustible Liquid  105o F. 4.9

As can be seen here, you basically have to warm diesel to 125F before it
will burn, gasoline will immediately burn/explode at almost any
temperature seen on any habitable part of the earth.

I believe kerosene is aircraft fuel, and as someone said here it's not 
that different from diesel.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Scott Granados]

Diesel can even exstinguish flame in some cases.  It is a much different
anamal than aircraft fuel.

There are concerns yes but not a good compairison.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote:

>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html
> ...
> > While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject
> > of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the
> > particular building.
> >
> > On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
>
> The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to
> the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC.
> Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
>
> --
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collaborative Intrusion Detection
>  join http://www.dshield.org
>

RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Jurbala, Daryl]

Title: RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address





The page loaded pretty slow.  Must be cloudy today.


Daryl G. Jurbala
Sr. Network Engineer
WorldNet Technology Consultants, Inc.
Tel: +1.610.288.6200
FAX: +1.508.526.8500
http://www.wtci.net
 
 

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Allan Liska]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5

Hello Charles,

Tuesday, November 19, 2002, 11:36:28 AM, you wrote:

CS> These guys have an idea:

CS> http://www.solarhost.com/

Sorry, it is still only a single power source and eventually the Sun
is going to burn out.  If they want my business I would expect them to
have panels pointing toward multiple stars, so they have redundant
connections ;).


allan
- --
Allan Liska
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.allan.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUAPdprfykg6TAvIBeFAQFe9wQAtC7UPXmzFdk8Usy1k417P9w9Me8uROa6
G7OoZ4N6UMk9Mzm7uVJBJFsqU30T9itpuBiQFOadZ4uh7RIEFoR7xwBHj05a+MLx
qfMGD8t7K5jBMptHIyup7gdnG1gRnbIUzrBccybY3nPysFp3YbjIupsA1t/8l9Yr
0M2/25LQEe4=
=8hzL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Charles Sprickman]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:

> On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.  Without on-site
> fuel there are several "ordinary" disasters which would be worsened if
> the telecommunications infrastructure went dark.  For example, during ice
> stores, hurricanes, etc we want telecom facilities to stay up for one, two
> or three days, depending on how long you believe it will take for the
> roads to be passible for fuel trucks or the power to be restored.

These guys have an idea:

http://www.solarhost.com/

C

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[David Lesher]

> Thus spake "Johannes Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to
> > the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC.
> > Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?

Unnamed Administration sources reported that Stephen Sprunk said:
> Jet fuel ak.a kerosene is essentially the same thing as diesel.  The only reason
> it's 'inert' is that it's too dense to explode like gasoline.  You have to mix
> in oxidizers (e.g. fertilizer) or atomize it mechanically (e.g. BLU-82) before
> ignition if you want a big boom.

Essentially is a big understatement.

Jet A **is** Kerosene. The highest grade, best inspected, Kero
around, but still Kero. When it flunks one of those 20-odd tests,
it's sold off as Kero. (At ~~40% of the JetA price...)

Diesel, and #2 Heating Oil are slightly thicker but in this context
not a whole lot different. [Diesel has a higher 'cetane' rating,
very roughly equivalent to octane in gasoline..] Note that Conrail
burn[ed,s] Kero in their locomotives; not sure why.

Eons ago, [it seems..] I worked at a tank farm where we ..spooled..
hundreds of thousands of barrels [1 bbl == 42 USGal.] of gasoline
and 'distillates' through local storage [tanks]. As I recall,
we pumped the major airport 10 miles away just shy of half a
million gallons of Jet A per day.


-- 
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead20915-1433

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Johannes Ullrich]

>  Even if you assume
> 100% efficiency, the tank is still going to me, um, rather largish.

That's what happens if you forget a ';-)' ...

;-)

-- 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Collaborative Intrusion Detection
 join http://www.dshield.org



msg06861/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Michael . Dillon]

>On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.  Without on-site
>fuel there are several "ordinary" disasters which would be worsened if
>the telecommunications infrastructure went dark.  For example, during ice
>stores, hurricanes, etc we want telecom facilities to stay up for one, 
two
>or three days, depending on how long you believe it will take for the
>roads to be passible for fuel trucks or the power to be restored.

This is a good example of an area where governments can intervene and do 
some good.

1. Local governments can prohibit fuel storage and generators at telecom 
sites.

2. Local governments can make it easy for telecom site operators to set up 
local generators and store fuel at sites that are near the telecom sites 
but not too near.

Right now, people put the generators and the fuel in the same building 
because it is virtually impossible to install your own neighborhood power 
cabling. But there are few disaster scenarios in which a PoP would be 
undamaged at the same time as the nearby powerstation is out of action or 
disconnected. If the local power cable takes a different route from the 
power utility's cable then backhoe disease is avoided. If the local 
powerstation blows up, we are happy because the PoP is still running on 
utility power unlike the current situation.

In fact, a single municipality could plan this as an integral part of 
their telecom infrastructure so that there are multiple telecom hotels 
spread far enough apart to avoid fate sharing and each one of them could 
be served by two local power stations, each of which serves several 
telecom hotels. These would also be spread apart to avoid fate sharing 
with utility power substations and cabling.

If you were offered a colo facility that supplied AC power from one 
utility and two local generator substation sources, would you rate this 
better or worse than a colo facility that contained its own in-house 
generators and fuel storage tanks?

P.S. What if the colo facility offered built-in water chillers for cooling 
with all the water piped downhill, down the block to a cooling tower? 
Would this be better or safer than existing systems? Could it possibly be 
built this way without municipal government involvement?

--Michael Dillon

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Brett Frankenberger]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:37:33AM -0500, Johannes Ullrich wrote:
> 
> How about using water power for backup? Store a big tank of water on the
> top floor and use a water turbine to generate power in an emergency...
> Wonder how much water it would take... but for sure this would do well
> in case of fire.

Have you done the math?  Let's say it's a 100 meter high building.  A
kilogram of water 100 meters off the ground has:
1kg * 100m * 9.8m/s^2 = 9800 J of energy.
Let's say we want to be able to run for one day without power.  So
9800J is enough to provide 9800J/(24*3600)s = 0.113W for a day.

So, roughly speaking, you need 10 kilograms of water for every watt. 
One milliliter of water weighs one gram.  So that 10 kilograms is
1ml, or 1cm^3, or .01m^3.  One cubic meter, then weighs 1000kg,
and, thus, can provide about 100W (for a day).

Now, figure out how many kw you need to run a telecom hotel, and you'll
know just how large your tank needs to be (and how much weight the
building structure is going to have to support).  Even if you assume
100% efficiency, the tank is still going to me, um, rather largish.

-- Brett

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Johannes Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html
> ...
> > While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject
> > of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the
> > particular building.
> >
> > On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
>
> The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to
> the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC.
> Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?

Jet fuel ak.a kerosene is essentially the same thing as diesel.  The only reason
it's 'inert' is that it's too dense to explode like gasoline.  You have to mix
in oxidizers (e.g. fertilizer) or atomize it mechanically (e.g. BLU-82) before
ignition if you want a big boom.

The problem with the WTC was actually the lack of a big boom -- the slow-burning
fire lasted long enough to weaken the structure.  If there had been a couple
tons of fertilizer on those planes, you would have seen a massive fireball but
the buildings would have stayed up, just like in 1993.

Not sure how this is relevant to NANOG, but I find it interesting.

S

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[alex]

> > Not sure what they would gain by converting to fuel cells as the article
> > suggests. They probably would still require onsite storage for their
> > hydrogen source in order to insure uniterupted supply, either hydrogen, 
> > lng, natural gas or propane. what's better in a fire, a heating oil tank 
> > or a propane tank?
> 
> How about using water power for backup? Store a big tank of water on the
> top floor and use a water turbine to generate power in an emergency...

Brilliant. Lets go back to school and study a little bit of physics that one
successfully slept through. The formulas that you would like to review come
from E1 = E2, E = mgh, W = K1 - K2. 

Alex

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Johannes Ullrich]

> Not sure what they would gain by converting to fuel cells as the article
> suggests. They probably would still require onsite storage for their
> hydrogen source in order to insure uniterupted supply, either hydrogen, 
> lng, natural gas or propane. what's better in a fire, a heating oil tank 
> or a propane tank?

How about using water power for backup? Store a big tank of water on the
top floor and use a water turbine to generate power in an emergency...
Wonder how much water it would take... but for sure this would do well
in case of fire.


-- 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Collaborative Intrusion Detection
 join http://www.dshield.org



msg06852/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[bmanning]

... what's better in a fire?

a decent oxider, mixed with fuel.

> 
> 
> Not sure what they would gain by converting to fuel cells as the article
> suggests. They probably would still require onsite storage for their
> hydrogen source in order to insure uniterupted supply, either hydrogen, 
> lng, natural gas or propane. what's better in a fire, a heating oil tank 
> or a propane tank?
> 
> joelja
> 
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html
> > ...
> > > While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject
> > > of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the
> > > particular building.
> > > 
> > > On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.  
> > 
> > The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to
> > the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC.
> > Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Joel JaeggliAcademic User Services   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E  --
>   In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last
>   resort of the scoundrel.  With all due respect to an enlightened but
>   inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
>   -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
> 
> 

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Joel Jaeggli]

Not sure what they would gain by converting to fuel cells as the article
suggests. They probably would still require onsite storage for their
hydrogen source in order to insure uniterupted supply, either hydrogen, 
lng, natural gas or propane. what's better in a fire, a heating oil tank 
or a propane tank?

joelja

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote:

> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html
> ...
> > While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject
> > of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the
> > particular building.
> > 
> > On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.  
> 
> The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to
> the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC.
> Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
> 
> 

-- 
-- 
Joel Jaeggli  Academic User Services   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E  --
  In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last
  resort of the scoundrel.  With all due respect to an enlightened but
  inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Jim Segrave]

On Tue 19 Nov 2002 (07:12 -0500), Johannes Ullrich wrote:
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html
> ...
> > While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject
> > of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the
> > particular building.
> > 
> > On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.  
> 
> The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to
> the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC.
> Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?

I suggest you have a closer look at what aviation fuel actually is.


-- 
Jim Segrave   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address

[Johannes Ullrich]

> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html
...
> While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject
> of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the
> particular building.
> 
> On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.  

The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to
the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC.
Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?

-- 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Collaborative Intrusion Detection
 join http://www.dshield.org



msg06848/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature