THE RNAL REPOI 2 1 - UNT Digital Library

Energy1976

COO/2698- 2Distribution Category UC-13

THE RNAL REPOI 2 1

Prepared By

Robert A. McGillPresident, SCORE Inc.

Mary IannucilliStaff, SCORE Inc.

James MarshalStaff, SCORE Inc.

John H. SununuChairman 'Board of Directors 1

1 SCORE Inc. -NOTICE7 United States nor the United States Dep/tment of 1Joseph E. Eschbach

i

sponsored by the United States Governm

ent. Neither the 1 1' | Thh qw" ." F"F# -I/==li-=Ill

Chairman, ERA II 1Energy, nor any of

their employees, nor any of Ihetr

1

Coordinating Committee

contracto/, subcontractors, 0, their emplo

yees, makes 1 5

any wmanW, express or implied, or assumes any legal

1lability or mponsibility for the accuracy, completeneg

Jon Anson

0, usefult,ess of any information, appamiu

s, p/duct or f

1 process disclosed, owepresents litat its use would not l

Final Test Event -'| infringe privately owned rights. %

CoordinatorCoordinating Committee

i Dale WarkSymposium CoordinatorCoordinating Committee

David E. StockFaculty Advisor, ERA IICoordinating Committee

ResourceAlternatives 11CompetitionStudent Competitions On Relevant Engineering, Inc.

th

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by anagency of the United States Government. Neither the United StatesGovernment nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legalliability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, orusefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or processdisclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privatelyowned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orotherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or anyagency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed hereindo not necessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible inelectronic image products. Images are producedfrom the best available original document.

© Copyright, Student Competitions on RelevantEngineering, Inc., October, 1977

All rights reserved. No part of this report maybe reproduced without permission of StudentCompetitions on Relevant Engineering (SCORE),Inc. However, since this document was supportedby the U.S. Energy Research and Development Admini-stration, the United States Government reservesthe.right to use, reproduce, or have reproduced,and use, without charge, for its own use, all orany portion of the materials herein. Requestsfor copies, or permission to reprint portions,should be addressed to:

National Technical Information ServiceU. S. Department of.Commerce5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22161

Printed in the,United States of America.

Graphic Design by Janet Christian

ii

CON I ENTSForeword vPreface vi

CHAP I El 2 1 SCORE: Development and Objectives 1

2 Energyoverview 183 History of The ERA 11 Competition 28

4 The Projects: Summary& Descriptions 33

Final Testing 786 Scores and Awards 83

7 Symposia I & 11 89

8 The Educational Impact 93

9 Media Coverage 101

10 Finances 118

11 Conclusions 121

APPENDIX A sponson 124

B Advisory Board 125

C Rules&Guidelines 126

D symposium I & 11 programs 147

E Newsletters 149

F SCORE Team Grants 178

G Scoring Documents 179

H Homesite Testing Documents 204

Final Test Event judges 212

J Final Test Event Schedule 214

K SCORE Board of Directors 215

[ Team Fundraising Guide 216

1 M Cost Code 226

FOREWORD

i i1 -

j,

The Energy Resource Alternatives II approaching such a complex engineering(ERA II) Competition called for problem for the first time. Instudent teams to develop a means of contrast, at the final competition,producing enough electrical power these same students discussed theirto meet the needs of a single family projects with confidence and

« home, using an energy source other authority. Most of these students arethan oil or natural gas. In addition, now employed engineers contributing to

,· the students had to produce this elec- diverse areas of America's technology.r trical power in a manner which was

economically realistic in view of In addition, as a direct result ofpresent energy sources. These their experience with ERA II, severalcombined demands proved to be both students are now working for firmsextremely challenging and difficult contributing directly to the applica-to implement. Every approach used tion of alternative energy sources inhad both advantages and disadvantages the production of power.in one or the other category.

The Coordinating Committee at Wash-

The competition placed a great deal ington State University provided theof emphasis on the economic aspects framework upon which·the competitionof the projects since it is economics operated. Their responsibilitiesthat will determine future consumer demanded considerable imagination,utilization of any of these systems.

j As it turned out, developing an time but they always tried to do theindependence, and enormous amounts of

adequate means of evaluating the best possible job on each phase ofbusbar cost of electricity produced by the competition. Of particular satis-a production-line version of the faction to me was watching the waystudents' prototypes was one of the they worked as a team, dividing labor,most difficult problems for the scheduling times to the best benefitCoordinating Committee. , of SCORE and fellow committee members,

h and to see their rapidly increasingThis ERA II Final Report documents sophistication in handling managementwhat happened during the competition.

13 While we cannot predict the overall rienced engineers.problems that would tax many expe-

effect of ERA II on future energyproduction, the competition will serve In summary, I feel that ERA II was aas a sound building block for the tremendous success and will have posi-future both in the area of technology tive benefits in the future on alland in the professional development involved in the competition.of participating students. Whenreading the design proposals andtalking to students at the first David E. StockSymposium, I was aware of a great deal Faculty Advisor for theof uncertainty among participants in ERA II Coordinating Committee

V

PREFACE

The severity of the problems pro-duced by the industrialized world'sdependence on petroleum basedenergy has been well documented and

. publicized in recent years. SCORE'sEnergy Resource Alternatives IICompetition sought to combine theinterest and urgency of this globalproblem with a productive educationalexperience for engineering students, -to demonstrate the potential for com-pact, on-site alternative energysystems.

As in all our programs, our primarypurpose was educational. Any sub-stantial contributions to componentdevelopment, or system improvement,are simply added dividends. Thesuccess of our programs are not mea-sured by what is built by the students,but by what is learned by the student.By that measure, ERA II was certainlya success.

For many of us involved with SCORE,ERA II represented the completion ofalmost a decade of related programsinitiated by the Great Electric CarRace of 1968. It is not easy to mea-sure the overall impact these effortsmay have had, but the dedication,enthusiasm, and capability demon-strated by the students at the FinalTest Events keep stimulating us tocontinue these activities.

Their commitment and performancecertainly justify the generous sup-port given these programs by industry, 1foundations, and government agenciesover these past ten years.

John H. Sununu /,ChairmanBoard of DirectorsSCORE, Inc.

Vi

CHAPI LI 2 1/ r

1 1 1 /\1... 4

-

2 1 111 - 1 -11- -111111'Zoi# ,'1 . 1 1 1

\/1 "

-

AIAY.4. -.'.2'C:a./.1.

. . '1 -- -«»Sl. ) „ . .. . ,* jit iii, .-··-7-ZA,IM. / 7,·:, 4'<f 'tn , ···

-4 1 l.b /6'('.,1..)6f.W,s..;,,;:." .. 1.

-- ....#. p l'. 7"'ILL.-,S,Y,Agi.&'.../- '.ihi.il/dillilillyll"Izilmilillimiu'll'lli , 3,9111

./ I

4 11 \4- -1- 1- F,2-19. . . .:Ii,·-3,ft#irrip· . . 159,5

.. ;:4-, 1 1

....,. ... . -1 .......Ii' 2..11,; 4 /7 - ; I RAL; '. · . . f " ...i...it re*.ty:41

1

7 < ,IF +1' ; 1,1 1 .1111 1 1 1 3 -:.1, vs##%3-"1: 6 .\ /. /6 1. 1/VIA'Al. - f :/ '. \/ /1 '1 I' 'l l

1 1, 1 ;22:./ L 111 W'% 1 A-L<

SCORE.Developmentand Objectives

Student Competitions on Relevant Engin- vehicles as a smog-free transporta-eering, Inc. (SCORE) is a student-run, tion alternative. The challenge wasnon-profit corporation whose members accepted by a team of MIT under-are U. S. and Canadian engineering col- graduate students, mainly from theleges. SCORE was organized in May of engineering school, with an engin-1971, as stated in the Corporate By- eering professor as a facultyLaws, to "engage. in, assist, and con- advisor.tribute to the support of studentinter-university events and projects To prepare his entry for the race,which advance education and engineer- the Caltech student also assembleding." a team of undergraduate and gradu-

ate engineering students. WithThe SCORE concept developed from the financial backing from a localexperience gained in two inter- newspaper, the Caltech team installedcollegiate engineering competitions a new motor and batteries in the VWand the growing need for a project- bus, along with a standard butoriented approach to engineering "proven" student-built control system.education.

The MIT team decided to base theirThe Great Electric Car Race - 1968 electric vehicle on a Chevrolet

Corvair which was subsequently do-In 1968, a student at the California nated. Exotic nickel-cadmiumInstitute of Technology (Caltech) batteries were also donated whichchallenged the Massachusetts Insti- were charged by a sophisticatedtute of Technology (MIT) to a cross- student-designed and built controller.country electric-powered vehicle Extensive alterations were made torace. The Caltech student had con- the Corvair body to adapt the auto-verted his Volkswagen bus to mobile to electric power.electric propulsion during the pre-vious year and conceived of the Since the two vehicles would have torace as a means to promote electric be recharged every sixty miles or so

ry if -T:2,1,51*a" 7 '4=-=Lrl-7 - j .liabizv':*9-.IC- 1,- -Tr:9 .10 1 j . , ,r , A -FA#b:$,91..., ··,249 . m. i . IFFJ· /6/ 3 . I . ../",7 ,./ it, ':3.

AMEE:Zip'/It#/*/lit, LQI"/rjemlilillillillillillililillillik6NI"lill/"41"/1/.3 i-

Z.7 . 9RE- ir ''/ _=RRi -<1 -M' 1I.- ---: , W f

4..i i- 4"

A EAA

limil » 74Fee*ew..It &·'':,AYFM ' '.'. ..7

1' · F - '<1 1ff. l

... ... . %3

... 2 ;··'. 2

«. allillill Jjuslifjei'.Jj.* ::* ...,%:44.=TA·,41, 3'-,..64:*M, Way*.

-_ir, a

1&4"*44 -_ i - 4...:..lit ..Ir....:. - C. *....4

-.-- . I , r e '· 4. : :

01 -Ust,21....

MIT's "Tech I" crosses the Great Electric Car Race finish line in Pasadena,California on September 1, 1968. (Photo courtesy of MIT Historical Collections)

2

along the race route, a cross- public to the fact that alternativescountry network of charging stations to the internal combustion enginewas set up for the race by electric were being explored by the engineer-utility companies. ing community.

The race got underway on August 26, The Great Electric Car Race also1968 with the Caltech car heading proved to be an extraordinary edu-for MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, cational experience, particularlyand the MIT car bound for Caltech for the undergraduate students in-in Pasadena, California, both cars volved. For them, engineeringtraveling over the same route. Each education had been based on theoryvehicle suffered from a variety of and design, generally restrictedmechanical and electrical problems, to the blackboard and homework as-including burnt-out motors which had signments. Being able to build ato be replaced, and were at times working prototype electric vehiclerecharged from a portable unit or gave them a taste of "real world"towed, incurring penalty points. engineering, forcing them to con-The MIT Corvair crossed the finish front the various trade-offs (suchline in Pasadena 74 days after as cost, reliability, and avail-the start, with Caltech pulling ability of materials) that theinto Cambridge 404 hours later. practicing engineer faces daily.After the assessment of penalties, As noted at the end of the race byCaltech was declared the winner with the MIT faculty advisor, Professora corrected time of 210 hours, 30 Richard Thornton, "In one week, theseminutes less than MIT's. students have learned the equivalent

of reliability engineering that mightThe Great Electric Car Race, as this otherwise have taken them years tocontest was called, generated a acquire. They see clearly that short-great deal of national publicity cuts taken in the laboratory can costwith many reporters equating it to hours of problems in the field."the classic Peking-to-Paris auto-mobile race of 1907. Unfortunately, The Clean Air Car Race - 1970where the latter race had helpedestablish the automobile as a feas- The following year, a sequel to theible and practical means of trans- Great Electric Car Race was organizedportation, the difficulties by faculty members at MIT and Caltech.encountered by the vehicles in the Christened the Clean Air Car RaceGreat Electric Car Race showed that (CACR), this automotive competitionpractical electric propulsion was was open to all forms of low-pollutionstill years down the road. Yet the vehicles. While entries could be de-national attention helped alert the signed and built by any group of

-.=».- '33

ill ' 'CT:Clan-FE.mivia :, Wr /-

' A.100£4go=

c LliC'I ELE C Erceal.\

SFAI UCIRIC CAR RACE

lieR.0 (rVE Cf TECOllilo GY

'': e» , TK,

'». f -.ys.../....,A 1, Rs

lu- 47 .3' 1

1· 27.19"ihi: 1

-4 41 ft kt.*5.*894 . S '0 132*£ 1444&/' 9 ...S'#3

The Caltech challenger arrives in Cambridge, Massachusetts 404 hours later butis declared the winner on the basis of its point score. (Photo courtesy of MITHistorical Collections)

3

-*

h ..

.....

,- I

--,=

':-$

4rr n * f I ::k

F

,= «'

499/A,

Ajes4, ./.4 +1- 1 4- ,

./4.- 4-

4 *"R' &5::1 , s.- - » . 3- «-25··, S .·.'-'--I &. - 1

--I...fl.- . d

One MIT team completely rebuilt Tech I as a hybrid electric for the Clean Air CarRace. (Photo courtesy of MIT Historical Collections)

individuals, including teams from pollution and the possible solutionscommercial companies, only college demonstrated by the CACR vehicles.students could drive them in the race.

The entrant vehicles were dividedThe faculty coordinators initially ex- into five competition categories ac-pected fifteen to twenty CACR cording to their power plants: in-entries. When over fifteen teams had ternal combustion engines; pureentered by mid-January, 1970, with the battery-powered vehicles (electrics);actual cross-country race still seven hybrid-electrics; power plants usingmonths away, the faculty coordinators either liquified natural gas orcould no longer effectively handle liquified petroleum gas for fuel; andthe administrative load required to turbines using a Brayton cycle oforganize the competition. This re- operation.sponsibility was turned over to astudent coordinating committee, com- The Clean Air Car Race program wasposed of students from MIT and Caltech, divided into three parts: vehiclewith a faculty advisor. performance and emission testing at

MIT; the cross-country rally fromThe CACR coordinating committee as- Cambridge to Pasadena; and a finalsumed all duties necessary to plan emissions testing at Caltech.and carry out the competition program.It developed and administered the race The pre-race activity at MIT tookrules, vehicle testing procedures andscoring system, directed the logistics place during the week of August 17,

1970. The CACR vehicles were testedof the cross-country travel of theCACR participants, handled all commu- and evaluated for hot-start exhaustnications with the entrant teams, emmissions, acceleration, braking,raised and allocated funds, and con-

bility. Two days were also devotednoise, road handling and maneuvera-

ducted a public communicationscampaign to arouse the public's inter- to seminars in which the entrantest in the problem of automotive air teams presented technical papers on

4

IA

their vehicle power plants. In addi- Thirty-six vehicles, eighty-five pertion, there were public showings of cent of the starting field, com-the CACR vehicles, a parade through pleted the week-long transcontinentalBoston, and evening meetings of the journey to Pasadena. While at Cal-team captains with the coordinating tech, the vehicles underwent a finalcommittee. hot-start emissions test. The re-

sults of this test were combined withForty-three vehicles qualified for the earlier MIT hot-start test tothe race, having passed the rigorous provide a deterioration factor forweek-long testing program. overall vehicular emissions. Teams

were also given a chance to discussThe cross-country rally got underway complaints or protests with the co-at 3 a.m. on August 24, when the ordinating committee, and at thefirst vehicles left MIT bound for same time penalties for rule infrac-California. The 3600 mile race route tions were levied. Other committeewas divided into seven legs with the activities included the final tabula-following destinations: Toronto; tion of race scores.Detroit; Champaign, Illinois; Okla-homa City; Odessa, Texas; Tucson; A final awards banquet was held onand Pasadena. Cold-start exhaust · the evening of September 2 for allemissions testing was performed in CACR participants. Trophies wereDetroit, and vehicle fuel consump- presented to the five class winnerstion was measured over the two-day, and the overall winner. The over-1071-mile run from Ann Arbor, Michi- all winner was selected by angan to Oklahoma City. impartial board of judges composed

-..., A .2 f--0- , .e.,98 . :·4.'2'' ' - :»S----- .......'.'....:'. 5.....

4 &' ' . .1- ''e.37'...A 'i

·. ' .,# AA f '1.--'d 3 .4 T' ' 52 ,· .... L....,i'all'ZE Et 'Tiv' a.4/42#04:c - - .: «p ... ..•.•·,i r,-'

04 i I lip#1. 2 4.... + 'mop

:1.*,:-

f

/-1,

.

I.

Starting early in the morning of August 24, 1970, the forty-three Clean Air CarRace vehicles left the starting line at the rate of one every three minutes.Shown here is one of the five Worcester Polytechnic Institute CACR entries.(Photo courtesy of MIT Historical Collections)

5

of representatives from academia, favorable responses, the new commit-state and federal government, and a tee began to actively promote UVDC.professional engineering society. Afinal seminar was held the next day At the same time, a group of engin-in which the judging panel discussed eering deans from universities thattheir reasons for choosing the Wayne had participated in CACR and whoState University internal combustion recognized the need for such hard-engine-powered vehicle as the overall ware oriented programs was moving towinner. create a permanent "parent" organi-

zation to sponsor UVDC and futureThe Clean Air Car Race proved to be CACR-like intercollegiate engineeringhighly significant in several re- competitions. Working together, thespects. For one, it was the first deans and members of the CACR/UVDCnational intercollegiate engineering committee designed an organization tocompetition conducted by students. take advantage of the strengths andOther engineering competitions for avoid the weaknesses evident in thestudents had been either sponsored CACR organization.nationally under the auspices of oneof the professional engineering The new organization, to be calledsocieties, or regionally by a uni- Student Competitions on Relevantversity. CACR was the first time a Engineering, Inc. (SCORE), would beprogram.of this magnitude had been staffed by students and recent gradu-undertaken by the students themselves. ates. CACR had shown that they wereIt was also the first national inter- capable of handling such administra-collegiate engineering design compe- tive responsibilities, and that theytition to require that full-scale brought a high level of enthusiasm andhardware be built and tested. Pre- imagination to the job. A Board ofvious national competitions had Directors composed of engineeringcalled for either paper designs or deans (later expanded to include rep-small-scale models. 'resentatives from industry and govern-

ment) would be concerned with SCORE'sAs was the case with the Great long-range goals and would not becomeElectric Car Race, the impact of involved in the day-to-day activities.CACR on the participants and thegeneral public was considerable. The The national fund-raising for the com-educational benefits of translating a petition would be conducted by SCORE.paper design to actual hardware was Funds solicited from corporations,demonstrated again on a much larger foundations, and the government wouldscale. The media's coverage of the provide development grants for thecross-country rally was extensive teams and support the operating costsand helped to inform the public of of the programs. The decision tothe various technical approaches be- centralize the national fund-raisinging considered to reduce automotive in SCORE was made in response to aexhaust emmissions. The Clean Air problem that arose during CACR. InCar Race had an impact in Washington addition to finding local sponsors,as well where the results were read the CACR teams were all approachinginto the Congressional Record. the same federal agencies, large cor-

porations and foundations for grants.Establishment of SCORE Many of these national organizations

were interested in funding the teams,Encouraged by the success of the but their granting systems were notprogram, CACR members began planning designed to make numerous small awards.another competition in early 1971. They suggested that the national fund-Building on their background in raising for future competitions bemotor vehicle research, they decided centralized so that they could makethe new competition should tackle the one large grant to the competition'sproblem of designing a motor vehicle organizer and it, in turn, could makeparticularly suited to the urban en- the individual team grants.vironment. A successor committeecomposed of engineering students from The grants SCORE would provide to thefive universities was formed at MIT competing teams would be used toto coordinate the Urban Vehicle De- support the purchase of expendablesign Competition (UVDC), as the new equipment, materials and suppliesprogram was called. In order to as- needed to construct an entry. SCOREsess potential interest in UVDC, a team grants would be seed-money awardsquestionnaire was mailed to 200 deans intended to provide major but not com-of engineering. Encouraged by 100 plete project funding. One of the

6

educational benefits for the team teams in a manner that fostered themembers would be learning how to raise educational objectives of the pro-donations of funds, equipment and gram, and to promote their sponsor-supplies from local sponsors. ship in as discreet a fashion as

possible.SCORE was legally established inMassachusetts in May, 1971, as a non- The organization of the UVDC pro-profit, tax-exempt corporation. The gram was also a refinement of CACR.members of the corporation are U. S. UVDC was organized as a two-yearand Canadian engineering colleges. competition with a design phase, a

hardware construction phase, and aEach member school has a designated final testing program.SCORE representative from the facultywho is the SCORE contact and who In the design phase, the UVDC teamsrepresents the school at the SCORE studied the hardware specificationsannual meeting. While every en- outlined in the rules and developed agineering school is encouraged to design for their urban vehicle. Injoin SCORE, membership is not a redoing so, the teams were expected toquirement for participation in SCORE seek technical advice from companiescompetitions. and other organizations in their com-

munity as well as from faculty mem-The Urban Vehicle Design Competition bers at their university. Totally1971-1972 new designs for the vehicle and its

sub-systems or innovative modifica-The Urban Vehicle Design Competition tions of commercially available(UVDC), organized as the sequel to hardware were encouraged. The re-the Clean Air Car Race, was the sults of this work were presented tofirst intercollegiate engineering the coordinating committee in aprogram sponsored by SCORE. Where professional-quality design proposalCACR had allowed any type of vehicle which included a technical and econom-utilizing a low-emmission powerplant, ic analysis of the vehicle design, andUVDC focused on small, quiet, safety- a project budget and funding request.oriented automobiles that were also After evaluating the design pro-fuel-efficient and low-polluting. posals, the coordinating committee

recommended the award of SCORE grantsA comprehensive set of rules and to help the teams finance the actualguidelines were written by the UVDC construction of their vehicles duringcoordinating committee based on the the construction phase of the compe-rules developed for CACR. The UVDC tition.rules gave design specificationsfor the entrant vehicles (outlining Both the design and the constructionminimum performance characteristics phases of the UVDC program includedand requiring certain features such a symposium to assist the teams inas headlights, windshield wipers, the development of their vehicles.seat belts, etc.), designated the The first (design phase) symposiumdifferent vehicle competition was held at the University of Toronto.classes (based as in CACR on the Here, speakers from industry, thetype of power plant), detailed government and academia presentedcertain required reports and gave a background information for the studentstimetable for their submission, to consider in their design work byand presented a scoring system for examining the technological and socialthe final testing program. aspects of urban transportation. The

second (construction phase) symposiumThe rules also defined who could was held in May, 1972 at Catholic Uni-enter the competition, and gave versity in Washington, D. C. Thisguidelines for team sponsorship and meeting was designed around workshopadvertising. To prevent a re- sessions on vehicle sub-systems whichoccurance of the relatively small were directed by leaders from indus-amount of commercialism that caused

try and the government. Here, teamsome problems in CACR and to firmly members had the.opportunity to directestablish the educational nature of specific questions to the experts onthe program, only student teams design and construction problems that(with a faculty advisor) from ac- they had thus far encountered. Bothcredited educational institutions symposia also included business meet-were allowed to enter UVDC. Com- ings run by the committee to discusspanies and other organizations were such matters as the rules, teamencouraged to sponsor individual

7

finances, and preparations for final per-hour crash resistance, energytesting. efficiency, and space utilization.

The vehicles were also subjectivelyThe teams were required to keep the evaluated in the areas of safetycoordinating committee informed of features, mass-production cost, andtheir progress through the submis- drivability by panels of experts.sion of two progress reports during For the cost and safety featuresthe course of the competition. A com- tests, the team members made pre-prehensive team final report was also sentations to the judging panels indue at the end of the program. which they discussed the salient

features of their design. Finally,The Urban Vehicle Design Competition the vehicles were evaluated for in-concluded with the final test event novative design and the degree ofheld the week of August 6, 1972. student fabrication of their power-Sixty-six teams from sixty-two U. S. plant, drivetrain, emission con-and Canadian colleges participated in trols, suspension, frame, body,the final testing at the General five-mile-per-hour bumpers, andMotors Proving Grounds in Milford, interior and exterior safetyMichigan. The vehicles were techni- features.

cally tested and evaluated (using theProving Grounds test equipment and The total score received by eachGeneral Motors personnel and other entry was achieved by summing theleading automotive experts) for their products of the score received inexhaust emmissions, acceleration, each test by that test's weighting

braking, handling, noise, five-mile- factor, and multiplying this sum-

11 1-

m. -1 11'6111 F r d

111 1111If (, 11 , Iil N 14

' 1 FI l i 1 1 1 ..,4-

111 111 111' 1 , 10 1,'1 -:-It- , r„'=A 5,----dw, t4

-

4 4-

01, -I

4-, 1*

10 '1 14'- 0.5- All,

41 9 2 1 1 1%Vi gri.1 1.4 ,

: .* '1 I '16. ,1 4 - 1 .. ...

1". *74 4 ,

- .... .na

Jt A-

Northwestern University's LPG-powered Subaru undergoing the Federal Mass EmissionsTest at the UVDC final test event held at the General Motors Proving Grounds.

8

911*t r'r .- rp-=.* ./.fr

- Ill-]lk=f.

*,

- ....-

b. :f -i .:11,1 F =#'M" - // 11 re 11 'I j'»- 1.% :

.ly ,# 11'

36 ---4-- .> -*

5 - .....Ii - . --"".- ...11......

,"

-

./

f, I

//\

*Al *tl 11*Mto-- e. 4,3 ¥, 0 4/ 4 42--*a.237&,1. . in*

The University of British Columbia vehicle, built from the ground up, took the UVDCGrand Award by achieving high safety, driveability and innovation scores.

mation by the vehicle's overall in- (Georgia Tech) in Atlanta, Georgianovation and student fabrication to host the SAF Coordinating Committee.coefficient. The University of Georgia Tech students staffed the SAFBritish Columbia received the high- committee which was based in the De-est total score and won the UVDC partment of Aerospace Engineering withGrand Award. an aerospace engineering faculty advisor.

To assist in defining the scope andStudents Against Fires 1973-1974 objectives of the SAF competition, the

Coordinating Committee assembled anUVDC firmly established the format for SAF Advisory Board of national authori-SCORE competitions. Students Against ties in the fire field.Fires was its first application to anon-automotive program. SCORE selected The SAF program was organized likefire-fighting technology as the topic UVDC with a design phase, a construc-for its second program because it is tion phase, and a final testing event.an area where technological innovationis urgently needed. The United States The first draft of the SAF rules werehas the worst fire-safety record of mailed to interested schools in Sep-any industrialized nation (with over tember, 1972. The design phase (back-12,000 fire-related deaths, 400,000 ground information) symposium was heldinjuries, and $2.75 billion in property at Georgia Tech in April, 1973. Thedamage annually), and Students Against construction phase (workshop session)Fires (SAF) focused on innovative ways symposium took place at the Universityto detect and extinguish fires, and of Maryland in October, 1973.rescue people from burning structures.

It proved to be more difficult toSCORE, in November 1972, selected the interest students in the SAF pro-Georgia Institute of Technology gram than UVDC. This was not un-

9

expected since students generally protective suit designs for firemen,have a greater inherent interest in and devices to fight fires in auto-automobiles than fires, and many mobiles, kitchens, warehouses, forests,more schools offer design courses on and grain storage elevators.automotive systems than fire-fightinghardware. Nonetheless, forty-three The SAF projects were tested at theteams from twenty-three universities Ansul Fire Technology Center on actualparticipated in the SAF final test fires. The tests were observed andevent held May 1-4, 1974 at the evaluated by panels of judges whoAnsul Company's Fire Technology also heard presentations given byCenter in Marinette, Wisconsin. team members on the innovation, massThe SAF projects ranged from innova- production cost, and marketabilitytive fire trucks to inexpensive home aspects of their projects. A teamfire detectors, and included a remote from Pennsylvania State Universitycontrolled fire-fighting vehicle, won the SAF Grand Award for its port-devices to rescue people trapped in able fire fighter's data retrievalburning high-rise buildings, new systems.

.=

* 14 r

'I'.

/ I

.V.

.. ./1 -

..1 + S At.d'.: 1** »'ty"F ..b 84:31%2;d e, 0.tjEEr ,-All,WPIRMF//res'Imet/#0

4 4///MY «*'--•"lA*1124Prat":>,gMjPj'.iffuS-.4*7. 3-.-'.= -$*..P-al-----W#-I .... .'=1/ 4"/2///1//I'Il/'ll/1//1/w- 9=/.- i81460' 1

.,- *Fwplin.UNI'low/9.B 7#54,9r98.de,91791IirgiN/.41 'lri:» R·'7733, I . ' '

114 'iq .„ -2-4 4.*.. . I -» r '.. ·Nipli.

..:...:.5 1.Wt, .... '1.

'25/*...<4*46/.... I

- S ' ........-- '..:...... 3..... ».

11 .1.......Fl

1.- :': z...: ....67Nt·.5·5. T.2-P -, -' ...4.I.+

- 74, -·,r·,e"l :·,4-1 • *r•·;·,4.· . . , - ·,... .. · ...7:1 -D- ' 4 - *.

r 4.,T...3 1.....1 1 ".

:4%* - ---- - 1:t- ---*53' -'2....) I. . . . * , - 4 444 // 4- ' k/:494/&Ll::71 : - --.-1.--.· .-1 rups*i.:71-.

- :4 - 9. ,-1.:. ........'.....r'-4:-041

-:: '... -BATh........f.>..... .. .-

- ** 2 3 3»- --I «':,

': ':. 0.- ... , :-:,..3.ilifY'52.:2514*1£< . i Vi &4<1I .-42 - I. 471'.. ...

A high-powered nozzle on wheels, the Iowa State University "Firecat" here directsits 500 gallon-per-minute stream on a spectacular blaze at the Ansul Fire Technol-ogy Center during the Students Against Fires final test event.

10

p1

' 4

lk: 41''. ··· /Al

, 7/i0'»» 4/4

*r.· 44

I. 4,4..

. +3 : I

43...:22£. h 4: . .0 . 4,

- ': t..F.1 .4. . r..1,,- I.· 4, & I ., ° rrt.

& 4

I«·1 ; 7lor#>' & r

''

..... *:./.." 1,

.

f, )te-

,- f:%44( "rit-:

....=4"

4- 5;4-r-- -'-= 6 .A,PENDA

-4.P"* -1116 r

9/4 .

Student-built, applying NASA technology, these life-support suits for fightinghigh-intensity fires were developed by an SAF team at the university of Texas-Arlington.

Energy Resource Alternatives 1974-1975 emphasis in the design and construc-tion of these systems was on deve-

The Energy Resource Alternatives (ERA) loping innovative ways to make themcompetition challenged engineering relatively low in cost and practicalstudents to develop systems able to for the homeowner or small busi-provide a portion of the energy needs nessman to install and use. Totallyof homes, farms, and small commercial new designs or innovative modifica-operations. Using such energy source tions of commercially-availableinputs as solar energy, wind energy, hardware were encouraged.

biological wastes, and coal, the stu-dents were asked to design and build In June, 1974, SCORE selected thean energy system which could provide College of'Engineering of theall or some of the following outputs: University of Wisconsin to host thespace heating and cooling; domestic ERA Coordinating Committee. Threehot water; and electricity. The engineering undergraduates were ini-

11

tially chosen to head the committee aware of the competition. In re-along with a faculty advisor from the sponse, the Coordinating CommitteeMechanical Engineering Department. launched a nationwide telephone cam-

paign directed toward potential teamThe ERA competition was officially faculty advisors.

announced in July through a mailing The first issue of a semi-regularto the Deans of the 334 EngineeringCollege Members and Affiliate Members newsletter was also sent out in earlyof the American Society for Engineer- October to all teams that had entered

ing Education. The remainder of the and anyone else who had expressed ansummer was spent refining the scope interest in the competition.

and objectives of the competition anddrafting the "ERA Rules and Guide- Twenty-five schools were representedlines." An ERA Advisory Board was at the ERA Symposium I held Octoberalso established to assist with these 18-20 at the University of Texas atactivities. The first Advisory Board Arlington. Speakers from the South-meeting was held on September 9, 1974 western Research Institute, Nationalat the National Science Foundation in Science Foundation, Electric PowerWashington, D.C. Research Institute, Institute of Gas

Technology, and University of Wiscon-The "ERA Rules and Guidelines" were sin spoke on the state-of-the-art ofpublished and mailed in August. Teams wind turbines, solar collectors,began to enter the competition in Sep- energy storage systems, coal techno-tember by submitting an entry form or logy, and methane production. SCOREproject design proposal. SCORE's personnel also gave presentationsearly team recruitment effort con- outlining the goals of the competi-sisted primarily of letters to Deans tion. Team member participantsof Engineering and posters describing pointed out during discussions thatthe competition. It was evident in the design specifications stated inearly October, with the ERA Symposium the rules were incomplete and thatI rapidly approaching, that a rela- the output goals were relativelytively small number of schools were large in magnitude.

--- f.1.- ''r--,1---- ---'f ..p,„.--- II *

" ./UN- c. 1 9-- ....37'.&... ...i.'.. ...' ' . . , -.*/-g/l-

1 - .. ..1 1

1.. .. . -, ..3,5':3 1.. -r«W .. \

.«©... .....

22 -32151

1 '- -

t

A A-'-Z:-·=5=: / .-1 - j--:'r---5-1-2..

1, -- I .--I. - - -/' . - ..2... , --r

, - ---.......... --JV-.-- - ..5--P.7 /%212--7r- 2- Crip

i*

10LJ t--.-5---»*7

1-lit -«« - The horizontal Savonius wind turbine developed by the Universityof Houston's ERA team gets more power from a small package byutilizing the slope of a roof to increase its effective area.

12

In November, new design specifications quality. Based on these evaluations,were drawn up based on the energy a seed money grant was recommended fordemands of an average home in mid-con- each team ranging from two hundredtinental U.S.A. Twentyfour hour input fifty to two thousand dollars.data was given for an average day inboth summer and winter. A demand During the competition, two additionalcurve for each of the desired outputs rounds of grants were issued. Designwas also given for both a summer and proposal quality continued to be thewinter day. Scaling of projects was basis for evaluating new entries andacceptable and expected by team progress update reports the basis forentries. The main reasons for this established teams. Special fundingwere that the projects had to be requests were considered as theytransportable to the final testing arrived.site and the teams' financialresources were limited. In January 1975, the Coordinating

Committee settled on an organizationalA new team recruitment drive was also structure that it remained with forstarted in November. The new mailing the rest of the competition. Twolist consisted of over 5,000 names from divisions were formed to handle eachthe American Society for Engineering of the two large areas of workEducation files of academic department expected in the upcoming months. Aheads. Fliers and leaflets were Technical staff took the responsibi-mailed for distribution at the class- lities for reviewing new proposalsroom level. A promotional film on and team progress reports, and foralternative energy sources was also developing the testing criteria thatobtained and lent to schools free of would be essential for comparativecharge. project evaluation at the final

test event. The Communications staffTeam design proposal evaluation had the responsibility of handlingstarted in early December. The Design all correspondence from the committeeProposal Evaluation Board rated the and managing logistics for the ERAproposals on their feasibility, office, Symposium II, and the finaltechnical content, and professional test event.

4«.

I- -:--/--'--f 1 .IG

:... , i....

C . - 3/79/9 i4 ,/ \

\9\\- th./. 4 . I

. ,

,

-

..

A

t

The variable pitch prop of the University of Oklahoma's "WindySooner" is teamed with a voltage control system to provide maximumelectrical power output in all wind conditions.

13

/' '».411: : 1 -,6, 44:,

''/ -"4/i",Ilim - 3... . , . 4- v.*==

\ r

// .,Sed, ..4,- ---*r). 4

. i Al" \ I I: '*9.1/ ./ - · . 1.96'll' I \ ' //.1.,9• 4, ' 'dil,7 . ...\ \

I .1 40* //.' 'Al". \' %

f... AM./ . . . r/Ai . g1 »-:.4, r6 '

" ., 14 :" ' . . '.CS \ 9

Suspended high above a bank of 352 heliostats, a boiler receives afinal adjustment by Bill Rogers the captain of the RensselaerPolytechnic Institute team.

During January, the Communications pilot projects in the area. The Tech-staff waged a second telephone cam- nical staff introduced the testing andpaign. Two hundred and fifty engi- scoring procedures they had developedneering schools were contacted and ten by that time. Team feedback and amore teams were added to the forty valuable exchange of informationearlier entries. developed at the symposium.

To obtain additional project perfor- The selection of the final test eventmance data, the Technical staff site was accomplished in May. Adecided to use home site testing as a SCORE selection committee visitedmajor evaluation method. The ori- three locations which had requestedginal specifications required pre- consideration. The Sandia Labora-liminary testing results, while a tories in Albuquerque, New Mexico wasmore formal evaluation procedure was chosen and work was immediately begunspecified in the Revised Specifi- on logistic arrangements and testingcations. The relative scoring value equipment specifications for theof home site data was not specified final testing. SCORE personnel made iuntil much later. several trips to Albuquerque over the I

next three months to work directlyTwenty-five teams sent representatives with their Sandia counterparts.to the ERA Symposium II held at theUniversity of Wisconsin at Madison In early June, the Home Site Testingon March 21-23, 1975 This symposium materials were sent to the teams. Thewas built around workshop sessions material included a general home sitewhich allowed team members to discuss testing document which described theconstruction and material problems. objectives of the procedure as a meansBusiness meetings were held to discuss for teams to evaluate their own pro-further ways SCORE could help teams jects in terms of the ERA competitionraise funds and other related criteria, prior to final testing, socompetition problems. In addition, that modifications could be made tofield trips allowed participants to optimize performance at the final testvisit a number of alternative energy event. It was also intended to pro-

14

vide the Coordinating Committee with Teams begin arriving in Albuquerque

vital information on the physical for the final test event on the 18th

specifications of the projects which of August. Project set up, equipmentwere due to appear at final testing checking, and initial testing hookupso that proper planning could be made. continued up to Monday, August 11th.

The Home Site testing allowed the Over three hundred participants re-

teams up to a month for testing and presenting forty teams from thirty-

evaluation in an in-depth manner not three universities were present. The

possible at the final test site participants, judges, SCORE staff

because of the large number of pro- members, and guests were housed in the

jects to be tested in so short a time Visiting Officers' Quarters of Kirt-

span. The Home Site Testing data land Air Force Base.

could also be used for evaluation of

projects lost or destroyed in transit The Final test event officially

to the final test event, or if severe commenced with a kick-off barbeque

weather conditions prevented actual on Monday night. Testing and evalua-

testing there. In addition, all com- tion began the following morning. In

ponent (solar collector, wind turbine, addition to the project and team

decay chamber, etc.) evaluations testing programs, the week included

would be based on Home Site data, with two thunderstorms, technical seminars

only output testing to be done at the and tours at Sandia Labs, Kirtland

final test site. Air Force Base, and Los Alamos Labs.There were field trips to local points

The general Home Site Testing document of interest, and the daily lunch of

also included definitions of entry four hundred and fifty hamburgers was

categories, additional specifications served from back of a pick-up truck.

which had developed in relation to thespecific testing site (Sandia Labs,) Saturday Morning was designated an

project performance data sheets, open house for the press and general

standard output values, and the public. While television cameras

storage evaluation. ground away on the test field, theTechnical staff was grinding the test

The home site materials contained data into an overall and categorydocuments for evaluating solar, wind, team ranking. The results were

and methane-producing equipment (com- announced that evening at the Awards

ponents) as well as documents for Banquet. The keynote speaker, Dr. R.

evaluating system output performance Buckmister Fuller, presented the

(space heating and cooling, domestic awards to the happy but exhausted

hot water, and electricity.) These students.

documents were developed by the ERATechnical staff in consultation with UVDC, SAF and ERA all generated afaculty members, government agencies, great deal of national publicity.and the ERA Advisory Board. Their Newspapers and magazine articles, and

development took about five months. television and radio reports focusedon the student-built projects and set

After the Home Site Testing documents them against the backdrop of the na-

were mailed, emphasis shifted to the tional problem they were trying toscoring system development. This solve. SCORE, through its publicscheme, using the testing criteria communications program, endeavored tojust developed, emphasized perfor- see that the news media receivedmance, safety, versatility, marketing, technically accurate informationand innovation. for use in their reports.

The general scoring criteria esta- A complete description of the ERA IIblished the areas of expertise competition is given in Chapter 3.required for the judging panels. More detail on the Urban Vehicle

By mid-June, a nineteen member judging Design Competition, Students Againstpanel had been formed to aid with the Fires and Energy Resource Alterna-team evaluation at the final test tives is contained in the finalevent. Schedules, judging forms, and report of each program. Copies ofjudge pre-orientation information were these reports are available from SCORE

developed. (See title page of this report.)

The first of August brought team finalreports pouring into the ERA head-

quarters. Initial evaluations of thereports were made as they arrived.

15

Summary field. The second symposium givesteam members the opportunity to dis-

SCORE's objectives in sponsoring inter- cuss specific problems that they havecollegiate engineering competitions encountered in their projects withare threefold: first, to supplement experts in workshop sessions. Bothcollege engineering curricula with symposia include business meetingshardware design/fabrication projects to discuss such matters as the rules,which give students practical engin- team finances, and preparations foreering experience; second, to promote final testing.new approaches to solving relevantengineering problems; and third, to The culmination of the competition isincrease national awareness of the the final test event in which theproblem the competition addresses. teams bring their projects to a

single location for a rigorous evalu-The goal of the competing SCORE teams ation program. The location is a(which may be composed of undergra- testing facility selected for itsduates and graduate students with at ability to test the projects underleast one faculty advisor) is to actual performance conditions. Dur-design and build innovative hardware ing final testing, the team memberssolutions to the problem defined by also give oral presentations before

panels of judges. Innovation,the competition. In doing so, it isexpected that the teams will seek economic aspects, and marketability

are among the design features dis-technical advice from companies andother organizations in their commun- cussed. The judging panels are com-ity as well as from faculty members posed of research and practicingat their university. engineers, policy makers from govern-

ment and industry, and other profes-The competition is composed of a de- sionals in the field.sign phase, a hardware constructionphase, and the final test event. The teams' scores are computed on the

basis of the objective hardware testIn the design phase, the student and the subjective oral presentations.teams study the specifications out- SCORE awards are trophies and plaqueslined in the rules and develop a which symbolize the student's out-hardware design. Totally new designs standing engineering efforts and

bring recognition to their schools.or innovative modifications ofcommercially available hardware isencouraged. The team next submits SCORE is a non-profit corporationa design proposal to the coordinat- with a Board of Directors, executiveing committee. On the basis of the officers, staff, and member schools.quality of this proposal, the com- The Board of Directors is composedmittee will recommend that SCORE of representatives from academia,

industry and the government (seeprovide a seed-money grant to theteam to help finance the actual con- Appendix K). The executive officersstruction of the project. and staff members are students and

recent graduates. Each memberIt is in the hardware construction school has a faculty SCORE repre-phase that many students get their sentative. While every school isfirst intensive exposure to hands-on

encouraged to join SCORE, membershipengineering. In translating a design is not a requirement for participa-from paper to hardware, the student tion in SCORE competitions.must cope with the various trade-offs(such as cost, availability of SCORE provides the team seed-moneymaterials, and simplicity) that the grants and supports the operatingpracticing engineer faces daily. costs of the competition with fundsThis is a fundamental aspect of raised from corporations, foundations,engineering often not examined in and the government.today's classroom.

Each of the two phases of the compe-tition includes a SCORE sponsoredsymposium. At the first, leadingexperts from industry, government andacademia discuss the engineering prob-lem addressed by the competition andacquaint the students with the currentstate of the art technology in that

16

SCORE History Timetable

August, 1968 Great Electric Car Race, Cambridge, Massachusettsto Pasadena, California

August, 1970 Clean Air Car Race, Cambridge, Massachusetts toPasadena, California

January, 1971 Announcement of the Urban Vehicle Design

Competition (UVDC)

May, 1971 SCORE incorporated in Massachusetts

August 19-22, 1971 "The Motor Vehicle and the Urban Environment"

Symposium, University of Toronto

May 5-7, 1972 "The Urban Vehicle in 1980" Symposium, Catholic

University, Washington, D. C.

August 6-11, 1972 UVDC Final Testing, General Motors Proving Grounds,Milford, Michigan

September 1, 1972 Announcement of Students Against Fires (SAF)

April 5-6, 1973 First (SAF) Fire Safety Symposium, GeorgiaInstitute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia

October 26-27, 1973 Second (SAF) Symposium, University of Maryland,

College Park, Maryland

May 1-4, 1974 SAF Final Test Event, Ansul Company Fire TechnologyCenter, Marinette, Wisconsin

July, 1974 Announcement of Energy Resource Alternatives (ERA)Competition

October 18-20, 1974 First (ERA) Symposium, University of Texas,Arlington, Texas

March 21-23, 1975 Second (ERA) Symposium, University of Wisconsin,

Madison, Wisconsin

August 12-16, 1975 ERA Final Test Event, Sandia Laboratories,Albuquerque, New Mexico

September, 1975 Announcement of Energy Resource Alternatives II (ERA II)

March 13-14, 1976 First (ERA II) Symposium, University of Oklahoma,Norman, Oklahoma

February 4-5, 1977 Second (ERA II) Symposium, University of Houston,Houston, Texas

June 9-16, 1977 ERA II Final Test Event, U. S. Energy Resource and

Development Administration, Richland OperationsOffice, Richland, Washington

17

CHAPI 612 2

t r:7:'.0, I .7

ati.,77 4W.

r, Lim.-,95%/1/i . 1-1/ 1, S 4/ a 4

*71 \U.* \11# 1

13

f Itt. i *A

1

EnergyOverview

The search for viable energy resource unrefined fossil fuels, such as coal,alternatives begins again with the releases large amounts of pollutantsclose of this century much as it did to the atmosphere. These pollutantsone hundred years ago when the oil will increase as our consumption ofsupply provided by the whaling indus- these fuels increases, as shown intry was replaced by a seemingly end- Figure 1.2. Until 1980, a decreaseless flow of petroleum. By the turn in pollutants is expected due to theof the 19th century with the develop- anti-pollution standards that havement of a consistent process of drill- been established. Beyond 1980, how-ing and refining crude oil, the transi- ever, the large energy demand increasetion from one energy source to another will cause increased pollution unlesshad been smoothly accomplished. Our the standards are further tightened4.ability and willingness to utilizeinnovative energy technology will de- In addition to atmospheric pollution,termine how successfully we approach the ruinous effects of strip miningthe transition at the turn of this for coal and the long-term dangerscentury. of radio-active nuclear wastes serve

as reminders that large-scale devel-The change in energy source inputs in opment of environmentally acceptablethe United States since 1947 reflects energy sources must be encouraged ifthe differences in their cost, conveni- we hope to maintain our standard ofence, and availability. As illustrated living. On a small scale, however,in Figure 1.1, coal declined from 47.9% alternative energy source utilizationof the total energy input to the current technology has already developed tolevel of 18.6%, while petroleum in- the point where it can make a signifi-creased from 34.6% to 46.6%. Natural cant impact in helping to meet ourgas showed the sharpest increase, mov- current energy needs.ing from 13.6% of the total energyinput in 1947 to 30.3% in 1974, but Figure 1.3 shows a breakdown by sectordeclined to an estimated 28.4% in 1975. of energy consumption in the UnitedHydro power, due to its limited geo- States for the year 1974. More thangraphic availability, remained fairly one-fourth of the energy availableconstant in utilization over the period, for general use is consumed in theclimbing slightly from 3.9% to an es- generation of electricity. In re-timated 4.5% in 1975. The recent cognition of this tremendous energyaddition of nuclear power contributed drain on our available resources,only 1.9% of the total for 19752. Student Competitions on Relevant En-

gineering, Inc. (SCORE) sponsored theDemand for energy in the United States Energy Resource Alternatives II (ERA II)is expected to triple by the year 2000. Competition to help contribute to theAt this rate of energy consumption, our development of small-scale electricoil and natural gas reserves will be generating systems for homes, farms,totally depleted shortly after 2000 A.D. and small commercial operations.Our known coal reserves are expected to These systems utilize such energylast for several more centuries before source inputs as solar energy, windbeing exhausted3. The United States energy, biological wastes, and coal.is currently obtaining 96.3%.of its The emphasis in the design and con-energy from fossil fuel sources which. struction of these systems was onare expected to be exhausted within developing innovative ways to make300 years. them relatively low in cost and

practical for the homeowner and smallIn addition to the certainty of fossil businessman to install and use.fuel depletion, there is an increasingawareness of the severe environmental A brief discussion of the four principalimpact of our current methods of energy energy source inputs used by the ERA IIresource utilization. Combustion of teams is given in the following survey.

19

Figure 1.1

UNITED STATES GROSS ENERGYCONSUMPTION BY SOURCE, 1947-1975 .A.72

| COAL , 64033 PETROLEUM

| NATURAL GAS , =Yflim,.56 --

1 '.e.1 NUCLEAR | ! 11111111111 HYDROPOWER

,=1111111111111111111111 i1 t, 48

S -. ..... ,l'11,1111'll'1111111'- 40 ==========-. . A - JEIEEEEEEIEE./.iwzijllil l'll'll'll'll'll'lllE

1, ...f==== -flgill'll'llilll'llill"ll'll'll'0

--lili'%11 111111111111.111111iwwmwikillilliilizillifillillilli '::J.A

- 11111 11111111111111:Il,LI-' - -NUCL[.An*.*.

1111,1-2--1 - _...____.............7.-' -.......... ...&.il,-6--.)i<211947 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975

Source: United States Energy Through the Year2000 (Revised), Bureau of Mines, U. S. Depart-ment of the Interior, December, 1975, p. 22

Figure 1.2

3- PROJECTED PRODUCTION OF POLLUTANTS0 FROM THE COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELSr.C) IN THE UNITED STATES,-1

2 No

E84 2-:5

PARTICULATE

&1

i =b 1- 12

%.

0H _000923 0 111111 1

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

1

Source: Rom, F. E., et al, Solar Energyto Meet the Nations Energy Needs,-NationalAeronautics and Space Administration,April, 1973

20

Figure 1.3

UNITED STATES CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY BYCONSUMING SECTORS, 1974

Household &Electric CommercialUtilities

18.9%26.8%

IndustrialTransportation

29.3%25.0%

Source: United States Energy Throughthe Year 2000 (Revised), Bureau ofMines, U. S. Department of the In-terior, December, 1975, p. 28

Solar Energy Two standard processes for utiliz-ing solar energy are photovoltaic

The sun is an ideal source of energy. and thermal conversion systems.Its power is clean and the theoreti- In photovoltaic systems, solarcal amount of energy it can provide energy is converted directly tois staggering. The incidence of electricity in a solid-state solarsolar energy on the earth's atmos- cell. The extremely high cost ofphere (on a surface normal to the - photovoltaic systems (currently atsun's rays) is approximately 1.35 $30-$50/watt for commercial solarkW/m2. When changes in the weather, cells) means, however that unless athe latitudes, and nights are con- cost reduction of a factor of 100sidered, the average ground level is achieved, they will remain too

. solar energy flux incident on the expensive for widespread utilization.United States is approximately 0.18kW/m2. Figure 1.4 shows the The thermal conversion process isyearly average solar energy inci- currently more economically feasible.dence on the different regions of In thermal systems, solar energy isthe United States. collected in a working fluid that is

Assuming a 5 per cent conversionutilized in a thermodynamic cycle.

efficiency of solar energy to elec- Electricity can be produced by

tricity, it is estimated that onlyusing a high-temperature yo5king

one per cent of the land area in thefluid (liquid metal at 1000 F is en-

continental United States would be visioned for large-scale applica-required to meet our projected tions) to produce steam which driveselectricity needs in the year 2000.5 a turbine generator. For home and

21

--1

Figure 1.4

YEARLY AVERAGE OF SOLAR ENERGY INCIDENCE INWATTS PER SQUARE METER (Horizontal Surface) 1

150 W/m2 17OW/mr150 W/m

BOW / m2

245W/m22

225 W/m

Source: Meyer, James W., et al, Energy Supply,Demand/Need and the Gaps Between, Volume II,The MIT Energy Laboratory, Cambridge,Massachusetts, June, 1975, p. 1-6

commercial applications, lower tempera- Wind Energyture working fluids (such as water at200-2700F) can be used to produce space Wind energy, like solar energy, isheating and cooling and domestic hot widely available, inexhaustable,water. clean and free. There is also no

question that it works since it hasSolar water heaters have been used ·for been used by man for many hundredsmany years in Japan, Israel, Russsa, of years.Australia, and the United States.0Over the past twenty-five years, In Europe and Russia, windmills haveapproximately 1,000 solar-heated successfully generated electricityhomes and laboratory structures for some time. The Russians, inhave been built7 usibg various 1931, installed a windmill on acombinations of collector design bluff near Yalta that produced(primarily flat-plate), heat storage 270,000 kW-hours of electricity in(such as hot rocks, hot water, and one year. In the United States,eutectic salts), and heat distribution prior to the Rural Electrificationtechniques. These buildings, while Act (1935), windmills were commonlygenerally successful, did not re- used in small-scale applications toceive a great deal of attention produce electricity. In 1950, therein the past because their costs were still approximately 300,000were high compared to buildings windmills pumping water and 50,000heated by conventional fuels. Now, windmill-powered units chargingas the cost of these fuels rises, batteries in rural areas. A largesolar heating and cooling systems scale wind energy system was builtare becoming increasingly econom- in 1941 as a joint effort by Palmerically competitive. Putnam and the S. Morgan Smith Com-

22

pany (presently Allis-Chalmers). The scale systems for integration intoSmith-Putnam windmill at Grandpa's existing power grids and small scaleKnob, Vermont had an output capacity systems to produce supplemental powerof between 1,000 and 1,400 kW of for residential-commercial applica-electricity which was sold to a Ver- tions. Currently marketed small-mont electric utility. The U. S. scale systems, complete with towerEnergy Research and Development Ad- structure, windmill, storage batter-

ministration currently has a 125-foot ies, and d.c. to a.c. inverters , are

diameter, 100-kW windmill under test available with ratings of 10 to 1000at the National Aeronautics and Space kW-hour/month at a cost of approxi-10Administration's Plum Brook Station mately $1,500/kW capacity.near Sandusky, Ohio.

Biological Waste Utilization -Wind energy, while plentiful, is not Methane Productionevenly distributed, as shown inFigure 1.5. Any organic material - sewage, animal

wastes, organic garbage, or vegeta-Power available from the wind is tion specifically grown for the pur-proportional to the cube of the wind pose - can be used in biologicalvelocity, and wind velocity increases methane production. This process has

logarithmically with altitude up to several advantages. It reduces thethe heights one would consider in waste disposal problem (the didestedwindmill use. 9 material is about 40 per cent smaller

in volume and is less noxious) andCurrent consideration of wind energy can produce a rich fertilizer and autilization is divided between large- clean, high-quality fuel.11

Figure 1.5

AVAILABLE WIND POWER IN THE UNITED STATESI.. 170• liS° 110* 105' 100. 95. : „. : „. m. *

200 1% BO 200 300 ..300 300 200 150 too 200 H 200

100

o w LO w100

.400

8 , 0 0 <3050 0

10 · · 0O o :o °°

1 0 0 0 0

..

0 0 0 '20 00

DO 0 200300

400 0 00 O O O 0 0 500300 / /O .100

6.

0 0 6 0 000e 0 0300 0 1 q 0 0 0 e000

2 00004$ 0 4 0 00 00 0 40 0 .

Ck)8(sp =HI1

0%. E 0 000 0 'o o °L

'0 6 0 - =

1 o i 00 0 1 Od: 33 0 0 0 .0

# o o o '"018 0 cp 100 Po =I.

0 .4/ 0 O 0n CP 0

O0 0 0 0 0 0

o op. ° ' r- # O 0 E 00 f $ Ile)541 1 '0,8 0 0# - i Lee o :0 0 d 08 .,0-200 · 0 0 0 ' (bo150 62 0 o

1 0 0.0 01 ·0

0

WATTS/SQ. METER °\ 25

-- . 1 =HI - -100 50 0 1 00 200 300 e

1 m110 ./ 100 95 90" 85" 8]1" 75 70

Source: Reed, Jack W., Wind Power Climatology, Weatherwise, December, 1974, p. 240

23

Because of the problem of collection, Each year, India's cows produce overmethane can only be produced economic- 800 million tons of manure. Duringally where there is a high concentra- the 1940's, the Indian Agriculturaltion of waste materials such as in Research Institute sponsored studiescities, paper mills, and dairy farms. on the basic chemistry of anaerobicAs shown in Figure 1.6, it is esti- decay which led to the developmentmated that approximately 15 per cent of simple digester models for vil-of the dry, ash-free, solid organic lage homes that could provide lightwastes produced in the United States and heat, and produce a high-in 1971 was readily collectable. quality fertilizer. 14

Coal Utilization

Figure 1.6 Coal, once the major energy source forthe United States, currently ranksthird in utilization. During the last

AMOUNTS (In Millions of Tons) OF DRY ASH- twenty years, petroleum and naturalFREE ORGANIC WASTES PRODUCED IN THE UNITED gas moved ahead of coal because theySTATES IN 1971 were cleaner fuels and lower in cost.

Wastes Readily Now, however, because of the combina-Source generated collectable tion of the price rise, prospects for

Manure 200 26.0 depletion, and politics of oil, coalUrban refuse 129 71.0 is being considered a major alternative

energy source for the United States.Logging and wood manufacturingresidues 55 5.0 Conservative estimates of U. S. coal

Agricultural crops and foodreserves place the depletion time at

wastes 390 22.6 200-300 years, while the depletionIndustrial wastes 44 5.2 time for petroleum and natural gas,Municipal sewage solids 12 1.5 as shown in Figure 1.7, is expectedMiscellaneous 50 5.0 to be less than 100 years.

Total 880 136.3With such a large indigenous energy

Source: Hammond, Allen T., et al, Energy source, it seems logical to use coalas a short-term alternative to pe-and the Future, American Association for

the Advancement of Science, Washington, troleum and natural gas while theD.C., 1973, p. 74 technology for large-scale utiliza-

tion of inexhaustible energy sourcesis developed. Certain problems mustbe solved, however, before such wide-spread utilization of coal can occur.

The biological process by which First, most of the high-energy coalreserves in the United States have a

methane is produced is basically adigestion of the organic material very high sulfur content which is re-

by several kinds of anaerobic bac- leased to the atmosphere upon com-bustion. Coal is also costly toteria. Acid-producing bacteria

liquify the raw materials and convert transport and is inconvenient to useon the residential-commercial level.them into low molecular weight

organic acids. Methane-producing As shown in Figure 1.8 , coal de-bacteria convert these acids (par- posits are also not uniformly dis-ticularly acetic acid which accounts tributed across the United States,for approximately 70 per cent of the meaning that distribution becomes

methane produced) into methane.12 a problem.

The crude gas produced by anaerobic Coal research is thus concentratingdigestion contains methane (50- on developing three processes (gasi-70 per cent), (02 and traces of fication, pyrolysis, and solvent re-H2S and N2. With a heat of combus- fining) for converting coal as ittion of 500-700 Btu/ft.3, this gas comes from the ground into a clean-can be burned directly in steam burning, easily and economicallypower plants. The C02 and H2S can distributed, and convenient-to-usealso be easily removed to produce fuel.a 1000 Btu/ft.3 pipeline-qualitygas. 13 Simply stated, coal gasification in-

volves combining coal with steam atIndia is currently the leader in or- very high temperatures to yield aganic digester/bio-gas research. methane-rich gas. This product is

24

Figure 1.7PROJECTED RATE OF ENERGY RESERVES DEPLETION

1.0

COAL---

8-O

&2N.6-5<N OIL

A GAS .2 -

I o i i i ' i1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Source: Rom, F. E., et al, Solar Energy to Meetthe Nation's Energy Needs, National Aeronauticsand Space Administration, April, 1973

ESTIMATED ORIGINAL AND REMAINING COAL RESERVES IN THE UNITED STATES

ANTHRACITE:

Pennsylvania M11 lillOther States 1

BITUMINOUS:

illinois '1 111 11111111111tllttlltttlltlttlll1111111111 tlttlttltltlttltttlttltlttlttltlt 1111 111111Htlttll 11 Itlll1111111111 l,1 ,t, 1.

West Virginia =====1============//==/711//til Missouri F////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////younunumPennsyly,nia « »»'UY/,27/;PU/+47,997,«17,72447/, 4»00.

Kentucky wmwmmwmmwmmwmmwmmumuk iColorado ,'1l ttltttlttlt lltlttt tltttl ( lt ttll t IttltIttl tltt 11\

Ohio

indiana Plll,710 17/q Key

Utah 2/00*04,7//00///,47& Production and mining losses

Alaska ==3====3 7 Remaining reserves

Kansas & LLLZL :21Alabama Wyoming WZBVirginia FM

New Mexico

OtherStates SUBBITUMINOUS:

Montana wmmwmwwmmum/mumwmmuumwmmwmmwmmwmwmwmmwwmandWyoming ' 1 111111111 11111111 ttllttltlttlttltllIttlttlttlttltltllttl 11111111ttlttlttlt 1ttltll

tttltltlrk '

Alaska wmmumwmwmmwwmmwmwmmwma·New Mexico wmwmmummwmmuwmmnA

· Colorado ULLSES222;zi3

Washington MJOther States 7

LIONITE: 44

Nonh Dakota 1////////N////,7//U//,27//7,7/////7///////4/0/0////00,4 t <r=*,1Montana \#/"/mwmwmmwmwwmmwmm//////mnwwmmmwa

Other Stes , , , , I , , I

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150.9

Reserves (billion short tons)

Source: Hammond, Allen L., et al, Energy and the Future, AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science, Eashington, D.C., 1973,P. 6

Figure 1.825

then purified to remove the (02, to remove the sulfur, yielding a low-H2S, and organic sulfur still present. sulfur synthetic crude oil.The resulting product (a low tomedium Btu gas, depending on the or- Solvent refining of coal involvesiginal combustion conditions) can be dissolving the organic components offurther processed through a catalytic coal in a heavy aromatic solvent.methanation (in which three molecules This process, normally carried out inof hydrogen are combined with one of a hydrogen atmosphere, yields a solu-carbon monoxide) to yield even more tion which can be filtered to removemethane. After the water is re- fly-ash and insoluable organic

materials. The solution is thenmoved, the resulting syntheticnatural gas is about 95 to 98 per cent fractionated to recover the solvent,methane with an energy content of 900- and the product is a heavy organic1000 Btu/ft.3.15 The medium-Btu gas material called solvent-refined coal.resulting from coal gasification can It is a solid or viscous liquid (de-also be converted to a liquid either pending on the hydrogen pressureby conversion to synthetic gasoline under which the reaction is carriedin the Fischer-Tropsch process or by out) from which all the inorganicconversion to methanol. sulfur and 60 to 70 per cent of the

organic sulfur has been removed.16In pyrolysis, coal is heated in theabsence of oxygen to produce oil and The coal conversion processes ofsmall amounts of char and low-Btu gas. gasification, pyrolysis, and solvent-The oil is then treated with hydrogen refining are summarized in Figure 1.11.

Figure 1.9

CLEAN FUELS FROM COAL

Low Btu Low BtuCO, H2, CH4, Cleanup

(100-250)I GAS

N2, C02, HZS

Medium BtuGasifier r GAS.(250-550)

Medium BtuCO, H2' CH4 Cleanup MethanationC02, H25

High Btu / SNG(950-1000)Hydrogasfier

MethanolSynthesis

1

COAL LiquidGas H2S

FischerTropsch

Liquid /

Pyrolysis - Hydrotreating .Liquid

t + 1 HZSChar 2H

Dissolution -- Filter and ,. Hydro- 6.Remove Solvent treating Liquid

1 »2Ash, Pyritic SulfurSolidification r

Source: Meyer, James W., et al, Energy Supply, D.emand/Need and the GapsBetween, Volume II, MIT Energy Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts,June, 1975, p. 13a

26

Conclusion 5. Beall, S. E., et al, An Assess-ment of the Environmental Impact

The industrialized world is facing an of Alternative Energy Sources,

"energy crisis" because it is rapidly Oak Ridge National Laboratory,depleting its current primary sources Oak Ridge, Tennessee, September,of energy. If we hope to preserve our 1974, p.36present standard of living, we mustdevelop inexhaustible and environmen- 6. Ibid, p.40tally acceptable energy sources. Thesolution to this problem will be multi-faceted since the different alternative 7. Solar Heated Buildings: A Brief

energy sources are more available in Survey, Ninth Edition, W. A.some areas than in others. In the Shurcliff and Company, Cambridge,United States in general, solar energy Massachusetts, 1975is more available in the southwest,wind energy is more available along the 8. Beall, op. cit., p. 76coasts and in the central states, andmethane-producing material is more 9. Meyer, James W., et al, Energyavailable at locations (such as cities) Supply, Demand/Need and the Gapsproducing large quantities of organic Between, Vol. 2, M. I.T. Energywastes. Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachu-

setts, June, 1975, p. 2-1Coal, converted to a convenient andclean-burning form, will in all proba-bility be the short-term primary 10. Ibid, p. 2-5alternative energy source while thetechnologies for large-scale utiliza- 11. Beall, op. cit., p. 64tion of inexhaustible energy sourcesis developed. Small-scale alternativeenergy source-powered systems for the 12. Stoner, Carol H. ed., Producingresidential-commercial sector have Your Own Power, Vintage Books,already been shown to be technologic- New York, New York, 1975, p. 146ally feasible. If they achievewidespread utilization, they will 13. Beall, op. cit., p. 65significantly help us to reduce theconsumption of our current primaryenergy sources. It was toward the 14. Stoner, op. cit., p. 143goal of helping to further developthis small-scale alternative energy 15. Hammond, Allen L., et al, Energysource technology that SCORE spon- and the Future, American Associa-sored the Energy Resource tion for the Advancement ofAlternatives II Competition. Science, Washington, D.C., 1973,

p. 11-13

16. Ibid, p. 9.References

1. Energy Prospects to 1985, Vol. 1,Organization for Economic Devel-opment and Cooperation, Paris,France, February, 1975, p. 7-9

2. United States Energy Through theYear 2000 (Revised), Bureau ofMines, U. S. Department of theInterior, December, 1975, p. 20

3. Rom, F. E., et al, Solar Energyto Meet the Nation's EnergyNeeds, National Aeronautics AndSpace administration, April,1973, p. 2

4. Ibid, p. 2

27

C»l 61 2 3

.· 37 : i . ../...:-/It.« ..1 ..I

.. * -

1

.1.

1,

44-- -

/ \l

111 1 11: 1 q», ' . 1 - . . 1 Il'i 1, f/.. 4.... *, 6 't.22/ , 4 - 4 )

1 * , M I

ULA. 1:L' 'E. 5 ,#/4, • =,= , L . F :'

4 . .t 1 ...... -1 9 6 ''k#'.. .1 9

I . - 9<r.£/-*7./.-/0--.--£..".,/A.r/...d. -p ==-I

The History OfThe ERA 11Competition

The Energy Resource Alternatives II lines for the ERA II competition were(ERA II) competition challenged uni- developed and distributed (appendix C).versity students to develop energy This document defined the objectivessystems capable of producing a por- of the competition, gave a scheduletion of the electrical energy needs of of events, specified the competitionhomes, farms, and small commercial rules, and stated the responsibili-operations by utilizing such non-con- ties of the teams as well as whatventional energy sources as wind, could be expected of the Coordinatingsolar, biological wastes and new Committee. The Rules and Guidelinesvariations on coal. The technology to formed the backbone of the competition.produce electricity from alternatesources has been known for decades, During the formulation of the Ruleshowever, the cost of the power gener- and Guidelines, an Advisory Board toated by these systems has been tra- the Coordinating Committee was se-ditionally prohibitive. The ERA II lected. The Advisory Board was com-competition emphasized the development posed of individuals from industry,of energy systems that produce elec- education, and government (appendixtrical energy at a relatively low B.) Their purpose was to provideCost. Innovative design and modifica- assistance and advice to the Coor-tion of commercially available hard- dinating Committee. The two Advisoryware helped accomplish the ERA II Board meetings, February 1976 andgoals. October 1976, helped with policy

decisions, competition logistics, andERA II is the second energy competition selection of the final test site.sponsored by the SCORE corporation.The first energy competition, ERA I, During the course of the ERA II Com-began in July 1974 and terminated in petition, SCORE suffered the loss ofAugust 1975. In contrast to the ERA its former president, Mark Radtke,II competition, ERA I challenged who had been with SCORE for threeuniversity students to design and competitions. His position wasbuild an energy system which could filled by Richard Aseltine, a graduateprovide a portion of residential or of the University of Tennessee insmall commercial energy needs in Electrical Engineering.various forms: hot water, spaceheating, space cooling, and electri- Teams began to enter the competitioncity. The ERA II competition focused in January 1976 by submitting ansolely on the production of electricity. entry form and design proposal on theirTo provide the teams with adequate project. Interestingly, of the 38time to attack the difficult design universities competing in the ERA Iproblems, ERA II was organized as a competition, only 15 entered the ERAtwo year competition, from September II competition. Reasons given for1975 to June 1977. the relatively low participation of

ERA I schools were numerous and varied,With every SCORE competition, a dif- but common explanations noted were:ferent university is selected to host (1) the inability of the facultythe Coordinating Committee. In advisor to devote time to an additionalOctober 1975, Washington State Univer- two year competition, especially sincesity was selected as the host for the the advisor's research had been ne-ERA II competition. The Coordinating glected already for one year1 (2) aCommittee was formed in October ·1975 by different group of students withthe selection of four engineering different interests, and (3) ERA II'sundergraduates and a faculty advisor commencement halfway through the aca-from the Department of Mechanical demic year after design projects hadEngineering. Washington State Univer- already been undertaken for the year.sity supported the Coordinating Com-mittee by providing office space,supplies, and monetary compensation To increase participation, a phoneto the individuals on the Coordinating campaign was organized in FebruaryCommittee. The Committee's responsi- 1976. Faculty advisors from pastbilities were to develop the competi- SCORE competitions who were not in-tion rules, organize the student teams volved in the ERA II competitionentered in the competition, coordinate were contacted, as well as the re-two symposia on alternate energy, and presentatives from nearly everyorganize the competition's Final Test engineering school in the U.S.Event. The phone campaign was successful;

23 additional universities joined inIn December 1975, the Rules and Guide- the competition.

29

Teams were allowed to enter the com- of arrangements made in Richland forpetition up to October 1, 1976 and the Final Test Event.with special consideration up toNovember 15. During that time, 58 A team captain luncheon meeting provedteams turned in entry forms. useful for discussing team fund -

raising efforts. At the luncheon, team Regular newsletters (appendix E) were captains received second round grants.sent out during the competition tokeep teams and those interested in Design proposals were submitted by theERA II informed of the competition teams to the Coordinating Committeeprogress. Nine newsletters were between May and November, 1976 forproduced and mailed during the evaluation. The proposals were eva-competition. luated by a group of engineers repre-

senting industry, government, andERA II sponsored two symposia. The education. The Design Proposalfirst took place on March 13 and 14, Evaluation Committee rated the propo-1976 at the University of Oklahoma sals on their feasibility, technicalCenter for Continuing Education. content, and innovation. Based onOver one hundred students and faculty their evaluations, a seed money grantfrom the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico was recommended for each team rangingattended the two day event. from zero to twelve hundred dollars.

The SCORE grants were intended toA variety of topics were covered at establish the credibility of thethis symposium. SCORE staff spoke of student teams to pave the way forSCORE history, Rules and Guidelines additional fund raising efforts byfor ERA II and the format of design the teams. A team fund raising guideproposals to be used for grant con- was mailed to teams in September tosideration. Speakers representing aid in local fund raising efforts.industry and education made a number During the competition, two additionalof interesting presentations. Topics rounds of grants were issued. Thecovered were Innovation, Engineering evaluation of written and telephoneEconomics, Conversion to Electrical progress reports were the basis forPower, and Systems Integration. awarding additional seed money grants.Alternative Energy Resources (coal, Special funding requests were eval-wind, solar energy and synthetic uated as they arrived. In all, SCOREgas) were introduced early in the contributed approximately $91,.000symposium, and systems utilizing them directly toward team projects.were discussed more thoroughly inworkshops. Other workshops coveredheat engines, energy storage, ther- The Final Test Event site was selectedmionics and solar cells. in October 1976. Information on

weather, facilities, and services wereSymposium II was held at the Univer- compiled by the Coordinating Committeesity of Houston on February 4 and 5, on five potential sites. At the1977. There were over one hundred second ERA II Advisory Board Meeting,individuals at the symposium. Most the Board approved the ERDA installa-participants were members of ERA II tion at Richland, Washington as theteams already well into their projects. host of the ERA II Final Test Event.

Work began immediately on logisticsWorkshops comprised the major part of for the Final Test Event and con-the second symposium. Their intent tinued throughout the next eightwas to point out potential problems in months with numerous trips by thethe development of alternative energy Coordinating Committee to Richland.resource hardware and solve existingproblems teams might be experiencing. In March 1977, an extensive Final TestWorkshops were held on solar energy, Event questionnaire was sent to thewind energy, coal, methane and energy teams. Results of the survey pro-storage. Additional presentations vided the Coordinating Committee withwere made by guest speakers on complete information on the physicalgenerators, project management and specifications, and required servicesinnovation. for the projects appearing at the

Final Test Event.

Members of the Coordinating Committee In late April, the Homesite Testingspoke about Final Test Event scoring Document (appendix H) was sent toand logistics. Bill Cawley of the teams. The document described theERDA Richland Operations Office spoke procedure for the teams to evaluate

30

their own projects prior to the Final teams and showed them where to setTest Event in order that modifications up their projects. Forklifts,could be made to optimize performance. cranes, cherry pickers, shop facil-It allowed the teams up to a month for ities, and liaison engineers weretesting and evaluating their projects available to each team during thein an in-depth manner not possible Final Test Event.at the Final Test Event. The Homesitedata could be used for evaluation of Teams continued to arrive throughoutprojects in case they were damaged in Friday and set up their projects.transit to the Final Test Event, or Breakfast and lunch was provided atif adverse environmental conditions the Richland Public Schools Cafeteria

prevailed during the test dates. beginning Friday and continuing throughTuesday of the competition. The

Work began on the scoring system welcoming barbecue for the teams, their

after the Homesite Testing document Homestays and Liaison Engineers tookwas issued. The scoring system place Friday evening. The keynote

consisted of four basic categories: speaker was Congressman Mike McCormack.

(1) Innovation, (2) Performance, (3) Saturday, teams continued setting upMarketability, i.e., durability,simplicity, environmental impact,

and tuning their projects. Teamcaptains received an extensiveetc., and (4) Economics: the cost

of power produced, net energy orientation concerning scoring and

analysis, and material assessmentthe 24 hour performance testing. The24 hour performance testing began(appendix G). The economics of a

project were evaluated by a special Sunday morning. The test was in con-

computer program using data sup- junction with the Public Open House,

plied by the teams, and performance and the beginning of innovation andcost judging.was evaluated from measurements

at the Final Test Event. Innova-tion and Marketability were eval-

Monday, teams reworked their projects

uated by a select panel of 42 judges and prepared for the second 24 hour

organized in mid-May 1977. test on Tuesday.

Team final reports began arriving at Wednesday was a day of relaxation andthe ERA II headquarters by late May. anticipation. The second Public OpenThe final reports included sections House occurred and tours were provided Ion: (1) Final Design, (2) Innova- of the Hanford Nuclear and Solar tion, (3) Economics, (4) Environmen- Energy Facilities. That eveningtal Impact, (5) Homesite Test Re- the Awards Banquet was held at the 1sults, (6) Marketability, (7) Oper- Hanford House. Donald Anderson, 1ating Instructions, (8) Education Im- Manager of Communications Resourcespact, (9) a Team Participation Log with Atlantic Richfield Company wasand, (10) a SCORE Critique. the keynote speaker. He discussed

"The Energy Crisis: A Problem inIn reality, only a handful of final Communications."reports were received prior to theFinal Test Event. All the teams Although the project set-up tookbecame totally pre-occupied in per- three days to complete, the dis-fecting their machinery, during the mantling and packing for the returnlast few weeks prior to the Final trip took less than a day. TheTest Event, rather than completing Coordinating Committee finishedall the paperwork. cleaning up the site and returned

to Pullman to write the final report.

The Energy Resource Alternatives IIcompetition culminated in the FinalTest Event from June 9-16, 1977, inRichland, Washington. Thirty teams,representing 22 universities,tested and displayed their hardwarethat had been developed in the last24 months.

Registration began Thursday, June 9,1977 at the Joint Center for Gra-duate Study in Richland, Washington.The Coordinating Committee met with

31

CALENDAR OF ERA II EVENTS

September 1975 Energy Resource Alternatives II announced

October 1975 Selection of Washington State University to HostCoordinating Committee

December 1975 ERA II Rules and Guidelines distributed

February 6, 1976 First Advisory Board Meeting held at the NationalScience Foundation in Washington, D. C.

February, 1976 First ERA II Newsletter mailed

March 13-14, 1976 Symposium I held at the University of Oklahoma,Norman, Oklahoma

May 15, 1976 First round of seed money grants awarded

September, 1976 Fund-raising guide mailed to teams

October 22, 1976 Second Advisory Board Meeting held at the AmericanSociety of Engineering Educators Headquarters inWashington, D. C.--Final Test Event Site Selected

November 1, 1976 Written Progress Reports due

November 15, 1976 Deadline for entry into the ERA II Competition

February 4-5, 1977 Symposium II held at the University of Houston,Houston, Texas--Second round of seed money grantsissued

March 30, 1977 Final round of grants awarded

May, 1977 Scoring and Homesite Test Document sent to teams

May 26, 1977 Team Final Reports due

June 9-16, 1977 ERA II Final Test Event, U.S. E.R. D.A. RichlandOperations Office, Richland, Washington

32

Cl-» 1 al 2 4

-,-

-

.r

»*4 1M '.i:. 14

1 -

1 / , -6.-9 14

1 -1/ f/- VT.. .h'.. '.

/

' ' E-· i

24*,0*Wht,i»il,",11'.»2·t»2·:i · /'i .) 1. -tAl.-

4 .·„ · .·i f.,i I-·.· r. ..'.7;·,:", · . · .· ..,· ,-:Lri/*ut

'- =3/T '3'i. -' i ·z_.... t «*» I:._ '.

, f. r -1:X'..7,31'.. d./6/6&/9

..4%« ,I ' ,-- 4

1.... ,541:g.*452. .... I .... ...

fl f fFe'I e,:B I"5" ,·'.'2: 1,4'...'."1 '11.'·1.. 1'11, S. t.'* .:.„, ".'. ,:.' 11: ...1:.,1 :, . 4 **'../ .: ... . . . . . r .·:· " 'i').'i:'" .· · . 3

·

' ' · *,; 49- 3.24%*:,...1.. . .,, . . :4 5 U.':..'...1.: .14 *VI rg ' t..'·.·· '.· '- / :Z ,",- .. . .1

. · ..«*.4- .- ......2,.'..1:.. I... ""1 -giL6,'' '·. · _--... g·l .... 1 · i

The Projects:Summary&Descriptions

This section contains a description ofeach project entered in the EnergyResource Alternatives II (ERA II)competition. The project descriptionsare composed of four sections: Innova-tion, Project Summary, Storage, andOutput. The Innovation section identi-fies concepts of operation, and compo-nents of the system which the teamsconsider as innovations upon currenttechnology. The Project Summary sectionprovides the following technical infor-mation about each project: Descrip-tion of major components, constructionmaterials and methods, and physicaldimensions of the system. The Storagesection identifies the team's meansof storing energy for peaking capa-bilities. And finally, the Outputsection indicates the project'sdesigned energy output in form andmagnitude.

Accompanying each narrative descrip-tion of the projects is a projectschematic and system photograph.The project sketch describes thefunction of each system component,and indicates the energy flow throughthe system. The schematics are re-presentations of the systems only andmay not depict actual hardware appear-ance. The photographs of each projectwere taken at the Final Test Event;hence these are the most accuratedocumentation of each project avail-able.

The combination of project description,project schematic, and photographsshould give the reader an excellentoverview of the systems produced by theteams. In nearly all cases, the infor-mation for the descriptions was takenfrom the teams' final reports of theirprojects, especially from projectsthat did not attend the Final TestEvent. It is not intended that aprojects' description be indepth.More information can be obtainedby contacting the schools directly.

34

SCHOOL: University of HoustonHouston, Texas 77004 f -

TEAM NUMBER: 10 {TEAM CAPTAIN: Brett BabbittFACULTY ADVISOR: Arthur N. Paul

& 1 1111>. TELEPHONE: (713) 774-5000, 16::

PRO,TEr.T STIMMARYThis 22 foot diameter prop-type

windmill has the capabilities of 4M./.i,0-/1 7- . :5-:61.producing 2 kw of electricity andcompressing 175 psi of air. Theelectricity will be stored in a bank E-..-26.-' -:.3 ..:SC"l.. 3,A.-- -··of lead-acid automotive batteries and

5064,6-24-/4...1 ......the compressed air in a 60 gallon , 56=2 -·er,e- 't, ...4.-'.Atank. The tank storage will be used ,- :,-,---=Ill- -

. --ted......A# bs.as a prime energy source to drive a

. -*, #51::C.'62*- .-.-"- tlgenerator with an air motor along with ) .

having the versatility of using air - -motors as any kind of driver.

.*'...2

STORAGE--I

Battery and compressed air tankstorage.

» „. .-/ 4'.,5 - pn.

OUTPUT *B-- .AJ +0

The system is designed to produce *:il. 111 . ... r.5,58.. ,·. · -,-- - „ M.A

2 kw, in a 6.7 m/s wind.

INNOVATIONCompressed air storage gives added

versatility to the system. The wingtips can be rotated to act as airbrakes in a high wind. The turbine canbe run upwind or downwind without a »4": 9 ./tail because a gear drive controls theposition. The blades are designed torun with 'the sharp edge as the leadingedge, which produce higher rpm and moreenergy output.

'.1:.\ -L< ,-

r-Sr -L_/ Air DriveA- - /.Air H Generator jL_Yompressor Storage A - <-1 1 -':. 9.

Wind U-Lvenerator 1- :t:::: i Load 10

1 :-

Mill f j 10 1LIJ

U4 4

0 0

Controls

J

35

SCHOOL: University of Houston -Houston, Texas 77004

TEAM NUMBER: 13TEAM CAPTAIN: Kirk RosenerFACULTY ADVISOR: K.J. WaldronTELEPHONE: (713) 749-4455[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT]

PROJECT SUMMARYThis system was to use a floating,

semisubmersible platform containing awave ramp, storage facilities and low-head turbines to convert wave energyinto electricity. The project wasdropped when preliminary resultsshowed that there was not enoughavailable energy in waves to producea reasonable amount of electricalenergy with this type of device.

STORAGEHead of water

OUTPUTInitial calculations showed 0.74

kw of continuous energy from wave 0.91m high and 5.49 m wide. Test resultsshowed actual energy output would be0.10 kw.

INNOVATIONWave energy was to be concentrated

by focusing the water waves and utili-zing shoals to amplify wave height.

Wave Filter Screen

ti11

Water Storage Tank

A Turbine FilterScreen

.@Turbine and

GeneratorWave

/

Pontoon

36

SCHOOL: University of HoustonHouston, Texas 77004

TEAM NUMBER: 16TEAM CAPTAIN: Herb DouglasFACULTY ADVISOR: K.J. WaldronTELEPHONE: (713) 749-4455[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT]

PROJECT SUMMARYWater was to be circulated from a

flat· black solar collector to a thermalstorage tank. The cooler water at thebottom of the tank would be pumped backthrough the collector until the wateris ready to enter a concentratingtrough collector where it would beheated to about 135° C. When the waterleft the superheating stage it wouldstill be in a liquid state because itwas to be kept at superatmosphericpressures. The water would then be" flashed" (dropped to 1 atmospherepressure) and become steam which wouldrun a turbine and in turn an electri-cal generator. The entire system wasto be controlled by an eight-bitmicroprocessor which would track thesun and regulate the system bycontrolling the flow of water betweenpanels to allow the sun to transferheat at its maximum potential,sending water to the location of thehighest temperature differential.

STORAGEBattery and hot water storage.

OUTPUTEstimated output was designed to

be 20 kwh/day of 115 VDC power.

INNOVATIONA microprocessor was used·to

channel and regulate water throughthe different cycles in order to reachthe maximum output.

ControlUnit »1'---f Para»olic

/ / / TroughFlat

CollectorBlack kr-)Collectors Thermal CI-

Storage--1 | Turbine Battery Loadenerator

Storage .-'

«-0 1 ..

Cool Water -,/V\»·Pump

Return

Condensor

4

Pump37

SCHOOL: Washington State University , 31 - - /Pullman, Washington 99163 BESS . .- . --' .9,a,£..& ....... 1 -

TEAM NUMBER: 19 .LE b 6.-- I.F..... - 1TEAM CAPTAIN: Paul Means

E..:., ........, . „.„-,2.....1 . . . . . 4t... ......., ..... \. -

FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. John A. SeeversL·: 0.96· :A ---:T ·· .4 - ...TELEPHONE: (509) 332-2085

3.·.I .I-//...1.-·· - ·:»..

-

9 .7gi·A: sia·3.--:..: .....» ... 1 -PROJECT SUMMARY ..p.' . 1- . . / * - . . -1Coal is delivered to'the home and 4 1.

......'.................. 1 Zstored in a large bin. From the binR<<341.0542- * 9

,/ 11.it is fed into the fluidized bed 1 &#47 .-.frfrik·.'t .'0furnace where it is burned. Heat%75;-1- .... 7",is removed from the furnace by tube 2-Ae.r,;.. ::3 ) ,

; , ': 7

bundles of the Stirling engine. The *pkrj n

power from the Stirling engine is #33., 4-*delivered to a generator where it isconverted into electricity for thehome. '

STORAGE -.p. It, ---•

No storage.- / ....

OUTPUT •r..

The system is designed to produce .-1

a maximum of 2.5 kw of 110 VAC power. . -<-- O gHy*4. , .

INNOVATION .. - - .

This system combines solvent-re-..'.... ./

fined coal, a fluidized-bed furnacefAL ··.:.'..,- ; ' 2.'-i ... 64

and a Stirling engine to produceelectricity. ' 73

17«:

A -2 4,5,\L• '.i -'ll....., _. '*1 etA

,• 031.....

':fs

4

Stack Loss tRadiator

I Space Heating-«/0,-

I Hot Water

.

TubeBundles

Stirling

Solvent EngineLoad

RefinedCoal

FluidizedBed · VBurner

Control 1,System.

38

SCHOOL: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 2,%%#I<*m.de zg// .'::":.2. ,%4'...»

.3/ ITroy, New York 12181 *WIT/ t

TEAM NUMBER: 22 %24*#463*34,8.i·' 8. 3-.,3 " .TEAM CAPTAIN: Bill Rogers er'* ....:Z . - ... GDA'·..'9"..:.-.

; 44-=.49-314·· . -· ,- '1*7·I ,S·- 1· · · 21 5FACULTY ADVISOR: Prof. F.J. Bordt <7:- 32 7 -I .-· - ..i:.K.5 ; .: 11 / 1-..... ·

. '11.. *

'32· -··1 " "-". '· ,·· ·:go ::.1 2

TELEPHONE: (518) 270-6545 -1.

PA

-PROJECT SUMMARYThis solar collector system uses

24 parabolic refrector columns (37.21,«---:-lid'sq m of surface area) to concentrate

sunlight to point where a boiler uses lillI »..WI:3 »:.I'

/ A · 1' 4 4

the energy to produce steam. The I t, . , , t. . 4 -1 ," 4.'*

steam is expanded through a turbine , r. ...... , , 4. I

providing the mechanical energy to 1

'111 *- . . : ''3:i! t. / . ..

. . . ,5 i. ..1,1 ,»

/,- I . '/.edrive an electrical generator. ... 22/f .,7'3,# 1Electrical power is delivered to an . . , . . . 1, # . -= f 7I

... .. I 3=*Pelectrical distribution system where - '.tL 9, 1it can be switched to a load and

used to charge batteries or to disso- _..»

ciate water into hydrogen and oxygen.- -'. .-IThe hydrogen is used in an engine/gen-

tie:21;#isLzA.32&*-t,=-1 5=*4 I.

erator set to produce electrical poweras required. Concentrated sunlighti q a l q n r•nnfer+Arl M i rertly int-0 .,f $., 113electricity through the use of verticaljunction (photovoltaic) solar cells.

STORAGE 1 Electricity produced is stored in

batteries while Llie liydiugefi is Stutedin tanks.

9-OUTPUT 9

The system is designed to produce =.- t.-r

2.5 kw, 32 v DC, from the Rankine cycle. 3S»M # 248

INNOVATION'i'hF syn'r.r.m 11:ir.:1 modular cotistrue-

tion of the solar concentrator out ofidenLical refleclor columns and has a #<unique receiver design. Highlyefficient electrolysis cells (95% of itdelectrical power shows up in theheating value of the hydrogenproduced) are also part of the system.

Receiver ContainingBoiler or other Energy Focusing Mirror

Steam Transducer ColumnI, i ne

ElectricalLine

Steam gupportTurbine Generator

,)rive trotor

Column

Hydrogen

,l.- Re lneDistribution System Uiti,7

Generator

le ysisBattery Cel

Storage

Load

'

39

SCHOOL: Amarillo College1 .

Amarillo, Texas 79178TEAM NUMBER: 25TEAM CAPTAIN: Tomas BonillaFACULTY ADVISOR: A.F. Adkins -TELEPHONE: (806) 376-5111 -

PROJECT SUMMARYThis wind system consists of a 3

bladed rotor (fixed pitch,) chain and.,

belt drive, two alternators, andstorage batteries. The generatorsare connected to produce 24 V. Theoverspeed is controlled by pullingthe rotor out of the wind. '

STORAGEBattery storage.

OUTPUTThe system is designed to produce / \

an average of 10 kwh/day (24 VDC) in an /' i. 1., . \

average wind speed of 6.53 m/s.// 1 : . , '..

INNOVATION 4 ,.\ -

The innovative feature of this ' shirdwge«eradorompoi t,i"„ici=„rcillly i /» available. '-

"

lilI .,1111 'p

/25

Rotor

Alternator 4

t' e . .,al ..

./

el ...2.„ h....i ....#64'NA/*AR

Control-0.,0-*,4

Panel

A "Mippr.Bil':=FOC *leLoad

r12#* 9 917 /, -,<1V 639&616 , ' . -:·- . ..'4" ''f : . ..

Battery4 Storage

M.UL.*mia#WaA:»131:3 '4 6. - ...I.1

.-9.Al .,L,=/// .- ,- -1,- -j.-,

40

SCHOOL: Neil Armstrong High School V.j---lillI'IMENeenah, Wisconsin 54911 29=1.-'.1.* 1,1»'.-'::6...74<1449 , A- 1University of Wisconsin @ Green :grl., 29/4, Lkof ABay; Green Bay, Wisconsin

rE,5. '11/4 -_ . . $r P-1--£-,Ar fi'/1/71 - S,r. 2679, ' 54302 M./41:"il - .1....6-- - 1....Ell

TEAM NUMBER: 28 4 f - 2 9 3TEAM CAPTAIN: Gary GarriottFACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Thomas Van

Koevering : 1 ,1 , 3 .TELEPHONE: (414) 465-2252 k Ef, <---=pr6/ ,„,-= BPROJECT SUMMARY

-This system produces direct current :MI"jilimT/& Ill'llill'll//226F.'MLCA<drcill'll'll'll illielectricity by introducing hydrogen 'F.". r. ..'' -WiA#JU.llad&'r.:'il -produced from the catalytic dehydrogen- r - W --IlitiN. WXiv.1,=ation of ethanol into a hydrogen-airfuel cell. Heat for the dehydrogen- . : . ...I- '..2 :

ation reaction is obtained by com-busting unreacted alcohol along with

L:Y· /*'S ' - .rep:. - *the acetaldehyde and other products r':' Ak.'·NISS#collected from the dehydrogenation Ar.3:4235.&513process. 29,9.72./2 ;e...6' Al *i 32.-2.-0....;1

163:. 2.-r.;..5.:-1150 S 4, .5-:..Ap&14·.·5.f·'-:,- 1 \7

STORAGE 3

Battery storage. 1.i,3.-91.1

,. ...,e. LYOUTPUT

Expected maximum direct output from *la'.A..:.. ..,---*.'-.......»the dehydrogenation-fuel cell is ....6.46*fyapproximately 8 W at 6 VDC. Through rkmlt Z=#42'11,0/Ii/ifilv: Rthe storage system, output voltageis between 2-24 V depending on the r ':'Ip":Im,---T../6combination of series and parallelcultlleL LiOnS. l ' 4:6*..'/4 <r'

f kb,4 -.1 1..

FiE* A 'AA+L. --. . . . . ...3 , gAlcoliol Firs--A/-eed

-/.4-2.e .1.'64/PR-

t-14-I

Catalyic

Vaporizer Scrubber Hydrogen- ReactionChamber

Reservoir

6-I

I "Flame 4 Fuel

Combustible Cell - WaterGases

.

Battery -- LoadStorage

41

SCHOOL: Rutgers University 7 "1·-271,1 p '0 -P - :,a r k"F.

Piscataway, New Jersey 08854TEAM NUMBER: 31TEAM CAPTAIN: Hugo Kruesi -FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. C.E.G. PrzirembelTELEPHONE: (201) 932-3268 & tPROJECT SUMMARY

A three bladed horizontal axiswind turbine is connected to a doublehelical gear speed increaser. Thespeed increaser output shaft drivesa generator which produces 24 VDCelectrical power . 4

STORAGE :'22-gfitt. --i t»'M.1 4.-71 E :-,+2 6./6<-.-4. 1/The DC power produced by the - 2 - -*-'.-1. *generator is stored in two 12 V car -«- -, --- '--1 i.-1'-.0batteries. R -,11, bm*+I

, .. ..-'.. L

OUTPUTThe wind turbine is designed to

produce power when the wind speedexceeded 4.5 m/s. The generatorproduces its peak output of 1.2 kw(24 VDC) when the wind speedreaches 6.7 m/s.

INNOVATIONIn order to simplify the overall

turbine design and lower the manufac-turing costs, a speed control systemis employed to eliminate the need forvariable pitch blades and theirassociated components.

Wind GeneratorGeared Speed VoltageIncreaser RegulationTurbine

BatteryStorage

Load

42

SCHOOL: West Virginia University producer gas fed to the engine by aMorgantown, West Virginia Beam gaseous fuel carburator.

26505TEAM NUMBER: 34 STORAGETEAM CAPTAIN: J.A. Tompkins Energy is stored in the form ofFACULTY ADVISOR: Bill L. Atchley organic materials and used as needed.TELEPHONE: (304) 293-3280

OUTPUTPROJECT SUMMARY The system is designed to provide

This project is a pyrolysis gas 36 kwh/day from 50 kg of 36000 kiloJ/kgproducer. A high temperature reaction fuel.vessel produces hydrogen and carbonmonoxide, which is burnt in an inter- INNOVATIONnal combustion engine. The system is This system employs the use ofdesigned to produce energy from munici- waste heat from pyrolysis to raise thepal wastes, coal, and high density temperature of inlet air. The benefitscrop and forestry residue. are greater fuel economy and cooling

The project consisted of two of gas producer hardware, which increases0.208 m3 steel drums flanged together hardware life. The project also has aand welded.to the top of a rectangular long pyrolyzation zone which allowsash box. Inside the drums, there are higher temperatures and more efficient

- a feed cone, air inlet ring, tubular pyrolysis.reactor, all made from refractory ma-terial, and air inlet baffles to faci-litate air preheat. A heat exchangertakes heat from producer exit gasfor use in air preheat. A cork filterremoves entrained ash and water fromproducer gases.

A 2.24 kw internal combustionengine, using gasoline, starts themain engine on producer fuel. Themain engine, a 11.9 kw reciprocatinginternal combustion engine, runs on

Exhaust to Air

Atmosphere A

Heat

Exchanger

Organic Wastes4.4/ 4

Air

4Preheated Air Starter Internal -

Pyrolyzer Gasoline - Combustion Voltage --4Generator 1 LoadEngine Engine Regulator--4

Aira

I. 4Heat Battery

Exchanger Storage91/K, I Filters

1Waste Heat

43

-

SCHOOL: Oklahoma State University STORAGETechnical Institute Battery storage.Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

73107 OUTPUTTEAM NUMBER: 37 The system was designed to produceTEAM CAPTAIN: Lawrence Miller 1.5 kw (24 V-60amp)FACULTY ADVISOR: Steve DavenportTELEPHONE: (405) 634-3169 INNOVATION[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT] The air-foils were to be easily

constructed from a foam core and a woodPROJECT SUMMARY trailing edge. A microprocessor

A vertical axis wind turbine, control system was also to be incor-consisting of three symmetrical air porated into the project.foils rotating around a vertical shaft,was to be used to generate electricity.The turbine was to have a 3.05 m shaftwith three 1.83 m arm supports mountedat both ends of the shaft. The airfoils were to be NACA-0015 symmetricalwing sections which have a 0.381 mchord. They were to consist of a foamcore, aluminum spar, wood trailing edge,and a laminated skin. The micro-com-puter, interfaced with an anemometerand tachometer, was to control thestart-up and shut-down processes,voltage regulation, and fail-safecomponents.

Wind Turbine

\Step-upSystem

SafetyControl

Generator LoadSystem

Inverter

Battery Storage

44

SCHOOL: Christian Brothers CollegeMemphis, Tennessee 38104

TEAM NUMBER: 40TEAM CAPTAIN: Dave KnoxFACULTY ADVISOR: I.A. JefcoatTELEPHONE: (901) 278-0100[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT]

PROJECT SUMMARYFlat-plate solar collectors

were to use energy from the sun toheat water. The hot water was to beused to vaporize Freon-11, the workingfluid in the bottom tank of a multitank Minto Wheel. Vapor pressurewould force liquid Freon-11 to thetop tank. The force of gravity inthe fluid in the upper tanks wouldcause the wheel to turn and drivea generator.

STORAGEElectricity produced was to be

Stored in batteries while heat wouldbe stored in rocks.

OUTPUTThis system was designed to deliver

20 kwh/day in the form of 24 VDC.

INNOVATIONInnovation was to be in the use

of the Minto Wheel to produce electricity.

Torque

Solar Energy

VII

4 GeneratoHot Water Trough + TorqueSolar Collector -- Converter

e 9-A Battery

HotRockStorage

Load

45

SCHOOL: Southern Methodist UniversityDallas, Texas 75275

-1 . ' -»TEAM NUMBER: 43 ETEAM CAPTAIN: Colby Ross --„........FACULTY ADVISOR: Hal Watson 2 r --1TELEPHONE: (214) 692-3126

PROJECT SUMMARY ,-1..

This system uses a six bladed4- -friDarrieus rotor to extract energy from

the wind and deliver electrical power.The rotor is unique in its design due $

to the arrangement of the blades onthe arms. The wings are in sharplystaggered pairs that resemble a fbiplane. ·/ E

i Ca aSTORAGE

i.

A bank of 6 V batteries. 1 4:I A'. T

OUTPUT i -' 12

A 2.5 kw Jacob's Generator, f': if

generating 110 VDC, supplies power to /the storage batteries. A inverter ,'Isupplies 115 V, 60 cycle AC power. .. ..1 1....

1 · .. ..44..J•:·*·- 14,49 ':r-I :.1:1.. . .'. .. =t:- 1611£*,3 .:r;,r':.. - *.:. INNOVATION 6,*LA'·T'-·-' 2 ·.ft·l·f.:. :6*bkfkke.*4. |MWM#FE,-•*. · " . i I.-• 12.**· "The biplane construction of the :--4-W=,- - . y=.**1/646. - :9 1 mia"i

rotor is a self-starting system whichrequires only wind for start up.

-:. 2...3 -- 7 t .: I

"

f .4,1. 1

a -.:,s.-.1 ....r. ...

-*41>>C-

.. · ' - .g---,-. '94-,%0

Stagger-WingBi-Plane .4 ,Wind Turbine i B

1 4 i\ .6

Cld# .SID>

ifiiGenerator StorageBattery Load

Inverter

46

SCHOOL: University of Pittsburg OUTPUTat Johnstown Raw manure from 12 cattle wouldJohnstown, Pennsylvania 15904 produce 20 kwh/day of 220/110 V 60

TEAM NUMBER: 49 cycle electricity and require 42.5TEAM CAPTAIN: Russel Tipton m3 of digester.FACULTY ADVISOR: John Klavuhn

and Zane Wade INNOVATIONTELEPHONE: (814) 266-9661 The waste heat from the engine[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT] was used to maintain the optimum

temperature in the digester.PROJECT SUMMARY

Manure was to be moved from a barnto a small pit outside, by a chainsystem typical of conventional barncleaners. A sewage pump would movethe manure to a loading vat for thedigestor tanks. Anaerobic digestionof the manure is a continuous processon a 40-day cycle. The resultingmethane gas would be collected in aninverted floating tank, and the excessgas compressed and stored to meetpeak requirements. The gas would thenbe used as fuel for an internalcombustion engine.

STORAGEThe system would include methane

storage tanks and battery storage forelectrical output produced by theengine.

fAnimal 1 - Compressed

Wastes Compressor StorageGas

-1-1« n

-Gas Pressure - i Internal Voltage' Regulator ---

Combustion GeneratorRegulator

Engine .

GasDigestor Storage

4-' .

Waste Heat Heat. Reservoir Load

47

SCHOOL: Stevens Institute ofTechnologyHobokon, New Jersey 07030

TEAM NUMBER: 58TEAM CAPTAIN: Bob SchwalbenberqFACULTY ADVISOR: Richard I. HiresTELEPHONE: (201) 792-2700[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT]

PROJECT SUMMARYModified contouring rafts were

used to absorb energy from oceanwaves. The rafts were hinged so thatthe wave motion caused rotation aboutthe hinge axis. A rack-and-piniongear box with opposing one-wayclutches were designed and constructedto convert the random heave and pitchmotion of the rafts into a singledirection rotation. The rotation wasused to drive an electrical DCpermanent magnet-type generator ratedat 110 V, 1.8 amps at a no load speedof 3550 rpm.

STORAGENone

OUTPUTIn a tank test, for a 2.44 m long

wave (wavelength/barge length =2) and0.152 m wave height, the systemproduced 17.3 w.

INNOVATION -'A controlled-passive anti-roll

tank was modified so that it wascontinuously out of tune to amplifyraft motion.

LoadGenerator

t

-11 ="ing=.Way

Clutches WithExternal Gears

lWaves Gear Racks

48

SCHOOL: University of Texas kAustin, Texas 78712 i

TEAM NUMBER: 64TEAM CAPTAIN: Ahmad Sharif-

Homayoun 7.FACULTY ADVISOR: Gary VlietTELEPHONE: (512) 471-4584

\PROJECT SUMMARY .M i

i »fi FThis system uses parabolic \2-

solar collectors, 3 reciprocatingsteam generators, and 3 recipro-cating steam engines. The collec-tors are 8 ft. long and 4 ft. ./

around the perimeter and were madefrom fiberglass in a pre-fabricated . a= f Yaluminum mold. The steam is pro-duced in receiver tubes which ab-sorb the solar energy. These tubesare enclosed in an evacuated glass - 1 1,7jacket to reduce energy losses.

>

STORAGE -------*Heat is stored in Therminol and . 1,1 12rocks.

OUTPUTThe system is designed to pro-

duce 5.31 kwh/day, 115 V DC. -< v

7, 4INNOVATION = 7. - '»The innovativp features of this -system include pdrabolic-trough re-flective collector surfaces, selec- a/-tively-surfaced double pipe receiver 1tubes, sensible heat storage unit, : i A 4.and solar cell suntracking mechanism. 0 < -

t ir »I .-

<-1 Expansion 'tr.44 ,

.-

v-v.v. Tank «

C><1 1><»·--

tSolar v'f

Collectors

-Steam Generator

Storage StorageSteam _ _

Turbine

Tank #1 Tank #2 Generator

- - 9

Load

4 FO 1 1 Condenserump Pump

49

1 -

SCHOOL: California State UniversityLong Beach, California 98040

TEAM NUMBER: 67TEAM CAPTAIN: Milton MichailidisFACULTY ADVISOR: Hillar UntTELEPHONE: (213) 498-4407[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT]

PROJECT SUMMARYA bank of parabolic-trough con-

centrators was to track the sun andfocus the rays on collecting tubes inwhich Dowtherm Heat Transfer Fluid wascirculating. In a heat exchanger/boiler unit, the heat from the Dow-therm was to be transferred to waterwithin a concentric double-tube heatexchanger. In a throttling processat the exit of the exchanger, thewater would be transformed into steam.The steam was to power a reciprocat-ing steam engine which, in turn, wouldbe coupled to an electric generator.

STORAGENo storage.

OUTPUTThe system was designed to

deliver 8-9 kwh/day of electricalpower.

INNOVATIONAn experimental reflective film

was to be used on the collectors. Thecollector unit was designed with a"modular" concept to allow for adapta-tion to different regions.

Parabolic

Collectorsc» . I.Steam LoadGeneratorTurbine

J

Condenser

50

SCHOOL: Washington State University -*Pullman, Washii·ig Loll 99164

TEAM NUMBER: 7 0 1--'-/1 . $ . 1TEAM CAPTAIN: Grant Marr

FACULTY ADVISOR: Bill KennishTELEPHONE: (509) 335-3224 1

... .....4

PROJECT SUMMARY This system uses a Darrieus wind i

turbine with a Savonius starter; this runs a generator and the produced '2

.electricity is stored in batteries.

STORAGEBattery s Lorage.

OUTPUT rThe system is designed for wind

speeds up to 30 m/s. At that windSpeed, it is designed to turn 200 rpmand prodnce 7.6 kw nt 74 V DC power. \

INNOVATIONAn electronic control system senses

changes in wind speed relative to theoperating speed of the wind turbine,

bl-),1and adjusts the field current on the er/4 * 4 ' ... .1 • .. "*I.-

alternator to prevent the turbine fromstalling. This results in maintaining

'51%".1'2.1/,NI../45'llici./ - . .- - I -I -... „, 4:14#*21

& ............' .172;t-' .9,

a constant tip speed ra Lio. The con-%'1./.*, lit*de......LIA#1

trol system also prevents the windmill &. ,......./ .4.. 4 . ' . .4•,...r -"·r --from operating at dangerous overspeeds. ...A.4/1,////..lili",&"/////

It can produce power in unusually high 04+ I-.$3winds by maintaining a large differencebetween wind speed and turbine speed by

,, ',r#&* „'hic,B.1.*au•"A/-increasing the load before the tnrhi npcan speed up.

. .. . 0. '·. .;.1:,·..A:t8=Il, .. ... T.

.. 4 .t 1. // I . , '.11..... ...#bw:Li.* '.,

Annemometer - 'I..»=, - ./ 11 . .. 1 -Illl leI. -:F..' 1- ":/4.:.... .: :r.1,

1111161 1 ..„,T" - - 1--Savonius Hind Turbine

AwwDarrius Wind Turbine , ,, 1 , ,; '1 .:2*

1 :.,„

1

r'

4 .- ,- - .... ·tr.. ..-«...

1Ka<6151 '.'. .. 4»q...M''E

'D - R«torIGenerator 1 Speed - 1

- Control bAil at #

.&

C-- 4

O 0 Battery /Storage f

-

0 0 3

Load k

51

SCHOOL: West Seneca East Senior High L./*..:- -).i.. » ,

School and Buffalo State M: 4 .--It..1 1- ....",. M 'University

f :S. . S

West Seneca, New York 14224TEAM NUMBER: 76TEAM CAPTAIN: Russel Fulle .'« 1'...

FACULTY ADVISOR: David Gierke 4TELEPHONE: (716) 674-5300 4

1 .SPROJECT SUMMARY = /WA . ; nr

This system uses a combination of ... . .1 I. r.rl . » '. - •'Lsolar and wind energy sources; the solarcollector is an 80 ft. parabolic trough 5. •--.· ·:- 3.... ; ...3 · - . ,

with 1994 2" square pieces of mirror. 1.9 1-e..'..:.. ....: . ., i...: . .... . t. ... . . -*

The wind collector is a 12 volt American pl:f»-5'.:1-i.-24.'.C....:.-....,t > . . 4 , - 4, f , .....· =..."T 'r.,8:,wind turbine. & .Wre#gy:-20...2:56''i.:le.

-.

em'54***5·*Eivblit. *I...i

STORAGE K'* A. ..t . ' 4

Battery storage.

OUTPUTThe system is designed to produce -0 ., - 44411 -" = -S:.b,r.. .....

2 kw of DC electrical power in a 10 m/s # 1 41 ..:.M.'' , 6...

wind. The solar portion of the project P. 2 -.:. '.

produces a nominal amount of power. 4:......

INNOVATIONThe tracking device is made from

photovoltaic sensing cells. Tracking isachieved by sensing voltage differences , 7.

between the two sets of cells caused by 4 9

the shadowing effect as the sun moves r r /,1

t. - -1-1- ..1»1acloss«tlleskyr 'Theneffisidnby tfethen„/ t. .. .. . . .f ,

1 il: ;hb i:i '2 : ;; i 3 11111'ff.1.-1.-1 itiL<. i ,_" 9-[ed set of contact points that could cor-rode in adverse weather conditions. . «..... '-i - . --'-11-1 i .i"Els/Ful'&21.CLWqi

Z'- WindTurbine

.(;:SIDI v Metering

(Exhaust <J Water )-\, And f

V

ollecto Battery

TrackinStorage --t Load

One Way ACheck Valve

Heat r=714 Exchanger •4--1 Pump *-| tilled

- [Water 1

TParabolic Steam

Collector Boiler - Engine Generator

52

SCHOOL: Massachusetts Institute ofTechnologyCambridge, Massachusetts 02139

TEAM NUMBER: 79TEAM CAPTAIN: Tom DavidsonFACULTY ADVISOR: James FelskeTELEPHONE: (617) 253-3790

PROJECT SUMMARYThis system utilizes a solar pond

as the collector, which heats water to200°F. Electric power output is obtainedvia a generator that is powered by a heatengine. The power cycle is a closed loop1 kw Rankine cycle, using refrigerant R-11as the working fluid, and a modified vanetype air motor as the expander.


OUTPUTThe system design output is 1 kw of

24 V DC power.

INNOVATIONThe system utilizes an inefficient,

but inexpensive "solar pond" approachwith hot water as an inexpensive energystorage medium.

LoadCoojing Tower

Glass Tubes,

.1 -PCOL-GeneratorSolarCollectorTank , .

Heat <f Heat

Exchange, :,< Exchanger

Multi-Vane

Expander

1 Pump ' 40\1

53

SCHOOL: Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta, Georgia 30332

TEAM NUMBER: 81TEAM CAPTAIN: Homer Cochran /0 / ,\.- --

- .... /0 / /-1 1 . ..'=X..FACULTY ADVISOR: Ron Larson ., ,1TELEPHONE: (404) 894-2930 r

'1».,»...1 :tPROJECT SUMMARY · ,· 53*f'*1- ..1This project uses photovoltaic cells,

.. i. .I .0314 -'*= «Lip 7-or solar cells, to produce electricity .. «

directly from sunlight. Since solar cells : , , . H

have such a high cost in terms of dollarsper unit power, a fixed-mirror Russell 9.1type concentrating collector is used to 11

get.k t.#..... 4-."

increase the incident sunlight on a cell 'Liv V. - . t: „1

and thus increase the power output. The r - 9 -.

49

cells must be water-cooled to avoid an ./...' %efficiency-reducing temperature rise. *4<6.% ..'.'.

Ir =4The power produced by the cells is storedin batteries and later inverted to stand-ard 110 V AC.


OUTPUTThe design output is 0.41 kwh/day of

110 V AC.

i INNOVATIONInnovation lies in the combination

of photovoltaic cells and the Russell-typesolar collector. A Russell Collector tracks /the focal point of a fixed mirror systemrather than tracking the sun.

e.

4

CoolingWater Out

, BatteriesLoad

Photovoltaic / Cells Inverter

// Russel Solar

Cooling 11 1 CollectorWater In

54

SCHOOL: Georgia Institute of Technology STORAGEAtlanta, Georgia 30332 Battery and hot water storage.

TEAM NUMBER: 84TEAM CAPTAIN: Wayne A. Lindskog OUTPUTFACULTY ADVISOR: Ron Larson This system is designed to produce

TELEPHONE: (404) 894-2930 20 kwh/day (110 V AC).

PROJECT SUMMARY INNOVATIONThis project attempts to utilize the Organic waste is anaerobicly digested

energy potential of the wind and that to produce methane gas. The systems usefound in organic waste, which has been a microprocessor control system.anaerobicly digested to produce methanegas. The methane is used to power anengine-generator system which produces110 V AC. A combination Savon-Darrieuswind rotor is utilized as a supplementto the valves and microprocessor whichregulate the digester. The digester isheated by waste heat of the engine-gener-ator and from a solar collector.

-Darrius Windturbine

r- Savonius Windturbine4-F

Wind J

Roto

/I-IJ' Pserator 1 Load

1:22Generator Methane

Engine4

Waste Heat

Microprocessor

1-] 1-1 GasL__.1 StorageBattery Storage

.

Heat (4 -Exchanger ( _*- 1 0 1 0 1 tky 1

1 Flat Plate00»uf-\ »\ . « »-\

'Collectors Methane Digesters

55

SCHOOL: Georgia Institute of Technology =a. .94-/.ify -Atlanta, Georgia 30332 =0 , l- 4-0.'-De.=-TEAM NUMBER: 90 , ... 1 4 --TEAM CAPTAIN: Kelly Carter wig" .* -r. 6 -is- t ,FACULTY ADVISOR: Ron Larson ./.2...9*213 d ' 63/ - .

TELEPHONE: (404) 894-6602 .IfUL./7//F,EM .-= =1/09/<31//Fi . -™=*'21..-lk*'lililli./t -PROJECT SUMMARY,&,5,41/.......Approximately 500 ft2 of concentrating Ch,i ililllll/ --

collectors will focus solar radiation to :CUJ# "ber.-P.mi -'im'llf.. f .>/" 1generate heat for boiling water to steam. M The steam will drive a reciprocating steam 239f551I/engine which will turn a generator to pro- 2SM---"thl 4. ..

vide electrical power. Excess power will 1 11- 12&&be used to drive a massive, spinning fly- Ii:#*Sj wheel for energy storage. The entire sys-tem will be controlled by a microcomputer

- .....- ., ... R". 1-PE - .,9system.

..... \ ASTORAGE *,:A1 71 - Val

Battery storage. -7..1 .1- .\ .. * - „ . -'

OUTPUTThe design output is approximately

16 to 20 kwh/day of electricity with a i

maximum power output of 2.5 kw, in theform of 120 V at 60 Hz. r r, 11 ./g......WM

. Ill.-

INNOVATION 0 ...

The solar concentrator design is r.....- 4--, . .. . . .....t -774... tt ' -.innovative in that the mirrors are flexed -*into a curve to yield a point focus in-stead of the line focus other slat type 1 · ··' W 4/. ......... 'r A. \' 9concentrators utilize.

.' :.....i. 2::1 -.:.... - - ..r*i

. . ' \.... , ... ..."*B q. . '6 .9-· i .... . R,«t »"' .6 f--· 4

·I .2- 04

S ... S-

. 1

U 7Solar ncentrators

F- 1»T- LoadFlywheel Motdr-Gerierator

IDC-AtF=pr,ces'lor 1 111

1 Generator

V ReciprocatingI , fteam EngineTherminol 77 -Feedwater InPump \1/ Boiler

1 4 1 4.r Feedwater

Condenser Pump

I to Low Temperature Storage

56

SCHOOL. Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta, Geuigia jo332 :

. 1 111! ' f '' 4- *=1 r ' 'd ,-

TEAM NUMBER: 93TEAM CAPTAIN: Brad Milner C» ·Ii./J#> , r.#*rt/11 48 la- 1.,lk*#ARA//412&/41132,_-0-/3FACULTY ADVISOR: Ron Larson ,'•,-• i, r': ·7:·'-p .1' ·f-f#·.,-·--r-,Tr«,f -T" 1 1 1 ., 7,1-1 .- -1

,-,;':'-' --Widli e[,46 1/D)/*1*/*0. «:4' &11+ i- ,TELEPHONE: (404) 094 2930 A. :·..,\'2.4.<\ Ir.·.*...7!,•' 9,-T<-1,- 1 -= ** ,

·' ...f.. 'f.i.: , \-'..4-h.*----i,C.di. ' ' ' _ ' 7 / _ , ,PROJECT SUMMARY

The Georgia Tech MUES (Multiple Unit I '".' 7.=,4 , St:9,4.-Energy System) is a Wind System. It uses · "" ' '·7·12-.T J)UME 7& ,-*2*r»2,0foui separate rotor assemblies to generate · ··'. ·· · 7 ··.".1,-·,.'m#.TP.K,.. - ...... - - i".- the required power. The turntable the t.. '.. ........ .,".:.:'..5"bl -:..... .

... . -1 -. r. Z:

: .. ,... '. : .... .... -:A...'.·.-t,1/:/, I-·-..>2 ·.."-i.>r.Lk-.- .,s·':' ..·:I,blade 10 moun'tod On ig 1,1.1,1* r,1 mi 4 1 pel . .'...'......1.. ''..;.I'.. f..i.... i St,Af,', "'.' - "'I. , 31

- " -eb. -:1''F:€l.:. .': .L--- i.: .4There is a 20-to-1 gearbox in each turn- .

...':g.1,":.1, . -3 .':,.-'li,tr» 46--a· -4 -1

table plus a truck alternator. :t-:3 . 2/1...... -U .I J.-0«·i .'A3181

STORAGELead acid telephone batteries.

OUTPUTThe test shows each unit can produce

ti0.95 kw in a 6.7 m/s wind. \/INNOVATION

-

A Situl.,le, 1 uw-Lus L ro Lor and powertransmission design produces a cost competitive system. For maximum efficiencyof the fixed pitch design, the field cur-rent of the alternator is controlled bya microprocessor to keep the tip speed towind speed ratio constant. ..,...

r' . '1- - . . 4

'-"';'Of WIT-1

Adi 50%*il,2 11' t - «- 1-1- - f ..&

1 1 - I ...Fjo- -. S 4 LAD! * L.*16. ··- ..=·1-,I- .

High Wind Protection 'L-.1 .....,1

-,1-1 -. :T. 1-lari +..*r«.'*#+Al./5/27,1/,SEEE.FImmill'll&*'.,3-»-..... .......I--

Tail . ·- '.:r·- Ge:T208,:CN4*.·LS'HAW -TC»-.I .g<.'Fsm

ServomotorAnemomete

»iControl ProcessoField Micro-

Alternator

»t

BatteryStorage

Inversion1 Load 1

Other Units

57

SCHOOL: Midwestern State UniversityWichita Falls, Texas 76308

TEAM NUMBER : 9 7 rTEAM CAPTAIN: Jeffrey Johnston rFACULTY ADVISOR: E. L. Holverson 4TELEPHONE: (817) 692-6611 T

6PROJECT SUMMARY , 1- 4

This project's goal, to generate 'r 1 ' 4electricity from solar energy, is .

-*.0 Jbased on modification of the Minto

\ * 4 '4Wheel, a solar-powered water pump. RAV .Rotation of this vertical wheel, which 4is composed of 8-12 pressurized tanks

„ 3

paired and connected diametrically by :PA .'..

M + 1/'crosstubes is a result of a weight--r. . 4%

.-" 9 >*transfer contained in half the tanksfrom the bottom-most tank to the top. ,* 12 -: -0 -.The torque produced by the rotation ofthis wheel is sufficient to generate

!

--

electricity through a gear ratio system. 1-" ,

OUTPUTThe wheel is designed to turn at

a rate of 10-12 rpm which would produce 11 114-16 kw, at 115 V DC. .

t. . 1/1INNOVATION

Innovation is in the use of the Minto A ----

Wheel to produce electricity. A sta- 1

tionary converging mirror system made of /1880 mirrors concentrates light through

L* 1 i .1«\a Fresnel Lens system.

12-, - ca .6 .4,3 , =

1463, til=1 -i . 1#64*99.Jt#+re.* - L I.

FreonReservoir' . 0 Flat Platele-<$5

External Mirror ArraysHeatExchanger

Fresnel1 Lens\ Concentrator I

9 Torque

\ '' S

j , From Hub

Generator Load

Transmission

58

SCHOOL: University of California,

Berkeley, ,·alitornia '14/711 \\ 1TEAM NUMBER: 100TEAM CAPTAIN: Rick GavazzaFACULTY ADVISOR: Otto SmithTELEPHONE: (415) 642-7591 --I

PROJECTSUMMARY UCB's energy resource alternative

4*/ I, I, I

system captures the kinetic energy /istored in the winds through a conven-

*. , '. , ,tional and proven windmill. Thisenergy is converted into electricity

-:-,1 / i / .and is directed into residence in the 1--form of 100 V DC. Energy storage is - .-/ -3

in the form of an inertia flywheel.A computer-oriented control system

. =· *i€,7 ·,1

'

-'.91----i:9 ..432assures the availability of constant r. 41*ht; .*.Ime,Ebline voltage to residence; the flywheelis charged and discharged in accordanceto wind condition and power demand.

L »,--11 &%4 - : .-45 .7.'.Z-,3'.·9 ) F1 2.iSTORAGE

Battery storage. j......: 1.,-:7 ..f ..-··-:.„ :i -&, 6462-tl-»·;.---.-1

OUTPUT11-IT151--,:.-/Fl..-t--1.t 1.4-6;50,9--TI:Output is designed to approach 1.6r.3,..:e'.h":.. I.I.. 'ir'' O · ..- 0 '' f . :." -·':"- .;

kw, 110 V DC, in a 6.71 m/s wind. t.., ·ti'· ''". '"-/. " ' a, .. ..-,t.'..-INNOVATION i . . - ,,.. , - ,, 3- ,«, ':t-,11ill.

The rim-wheel power take-off, in '' =ill

'7 - I ' M ---*4 -- - -- e Jconjunction with the rotating tower allows 6- ' 4.'•'1,:6#09£-the generator to sit close to the ground. -f..3250'<..fl. 2'*ibi ., .. »- 1

1../-, ...., \_ Ii- ,This avoids the vibrational problems ..=.r'- i«-A.

associated with a massive generator on . **S> .1.

top, removes the gear box and its wear ,_ .,4 ....

problems, and avoids the tension pro- - 4.1blems in belt drive windmills. 5<4.....2- ji--- ---

WindTurbine

iGenerator

Controls k BatteryStorage

V

Load

59

SCHOOL: Ohio UniversityAthens, Ohio 45701

TEAM NUMBER: 103TEAM CAPTAIN: Chris ScheckFACULTY ADVISOR: Roy LawrenceTELEPHONE: (614) 594-5862[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT]

PROJECT SUMMARYA propeller-type windmill was

to employ two 4-meter fiberglassblades to drive a DC generatormounted on a turntable at the topof a windmill tower. The tower wasto be approximately 15 meters inheight and constructed out of stand-ard steel TV antenna tower sections.


OUTPUTEstimated output at an average

wind speed of 5 m/s is 27.1 kwh/dayof 115 V AC power.

INNOVATIONThe molded fiberglass blades

used in this system could be massproduced relatively cheaply.

BatteryWind Generato I.- Storage Load

Mill \- Inverter

U

60

SCHOOL: Kansas Slate University -5:1'-1Manhattan, Kansas 66506 6

TEAM NUMBER: 106 .„». - £'TEAM CAPTAIN: Lee McQueen EI

-*4

FACULTY ADVISOR: Richard Hayter 5, 4 ------: " '-1-TELEPHONE:

(9 1 3) 5 3 2-5 6 2 0 *.P

I I .r -

.--- L"i13· :, -PROJECT SUMMARY -4 : . r-

...... »'" .....,..2- . . . »Thi>i wy#I win converts fer-

mented sorghum to ethanol, which ...-- .., .f- : 3 7 -1. ,8& M

-...».. ., - -- ..-- 4is burned in an internal combustion -./ S'32, r /':te: A

engine; this, in turn, drives an 4 24* 2- -./.- -..„AC generator. As an auxiliary 9:'e 9 +613. 9. -4 4* 6:energy source, a Savonius wind tur- 4. 31 :'I,»- I I Ibine is used also. 4 1

.... 7.3STORAGE --' +

..

Battery and liquid ethanol -- -.-<

storage. ©r./6 I .-

OUTPUT 515 - il.&*l ims »-72/1&7 *Uist:. f. ATo produce 20 kwh/day for 1 64.

fwz) .*-474%3/ffrayear, 65 acres of sorghum at 2%overall efficiency is needed. ,.. .*.4-... - - •Ii,»-0.1£ ..4 .2.-4.-'.INNOVATION

This system uses a renewablefuel source with a useable by-product.The pulp by-product left after thecrushing process can be used as cattle Yeastfeed.

Fl

Cane - Fermentation /DistillationhStorage

Sorghum

i---iHarvester. Crusher

-7 TankE-C Column )

-* Tanks

\/6 -F cattle 1 Waste1 Feed I

Internal 1Combustion 1 r\'j GeneratorEngine .1 £,

t

tlectronic O 0

Monitoring __ - -4 Batteries LoadSystem

61

SCHOOL: University of EvansvilleEvansville, Indiana 47714

TEAM NUMBER: 109TEAM CAPTAIN: John GaitherFACULTY ADVISOR: William HartsawTELEPHONE: (812) 479-2652[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT]

PROJECT SUMMARYFocused solar energy was to be

collected by 26 sq.m. of fixed para-bolic collectors using a water mediumwhich could be Stored at high temper-ature. The high temperature waterwas to heat the Freon in a heat ex-changer. The output from the gen-erator was to be stored in batteriesor shifted to the load as required.

STORAGEHot water storage tanks (3.785

cu.m.) and batteries.

OUTPUTThe output work of the system

was designed to be 24 V DC, 37 kwhper day.

INNOVATIONThe concentration factor of the

solar collectors which govern theacceptance angle and the trough widthand height was to be 5:1. The systemwas to use a modified steam turbinewith Freon as the working fluid.

/ / / Parabolic

I

r-_1-- High D ,r Freon - h 'Generator 1 - Batteryd . Temperature ---

Water $ Heat | Turbine --71

/ Storage

Storage < Exchanger t« I-T - Controls __. Load

Condenser j

62

-- 1

srHonT,: Tiniversity of Wisconsin atMadison .--=Ji

Madison, Wisionsin 53706TEAM NUMBER: 112TEAM CAPTAIN: Ken Kriesel 4,

FACULTY ADVISOR: Ali A. SeiregTELEPHONE: (608) 262-3594

4 1

PROJECT SUMMARYWood and coal refuse are combusted ... 9

in a Brayton cycle engine. Electricity 3:f:r. 43i... ···4-

is stored in batteries. -„..

STORAGE *'."

Energy is stored in coal until readyfor use.

OUTPUT *»

Design power output specificationsare 1.5 kw of 110 V 60 Hz AC

electricity. .*t-, ;5 -.

INNOVATIONThis system uses external combustion

of organic fuels to power a Brayton cycleheat engine.

Stack

-

Fuel

/Fuel R-Preparation Fuel Burner Scrubber Treatment

Water

- Storage

C/'L.

GasesAsh

Disposal

Turbocharger

D.(.Battery 114 Generator ) 3 Storage I

A.C. h 4 - /I-1lGenerator ) . Load c---n„ j1- -I \3/

Inverter

63

SCHOOL: Illinois Institute of OUTPUTTechnology The output was designed to beChicago, Illinois 60616 20 kwh/day of 24-28 V DC power.

TEAM NUMBER: 115TEAM CAPTAIN: Jerry KingFACULTY ADVISOR: T. P. Torda INNOVATIONTELEPHONE NUMBER: (312) 567-3190 The system design called for the[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT] largest molded foam troughs known and

a Tesla Turbine for conversion of heatPROJECT SUMMARY to mechanical power.

The system consists of 48(approx. 60 sq.m.) parabolic troGghcollectors that were used in the con-centration of solar energy. The con-centrated energy heats water in acentral pipe up to 204 C. From thecollectors, the fluid is cycled througha Tesla Turbine, and then condensedsteam is returned to the cycle. Thepower from the Tesla Turbine was torun a generator which would produceelectrical power. A switching cir-cuit was to direct the output tocharge the batteries or provide energyfor home use. 4 tracking units wereattached to the collector rack.


/ -7»7 ParabolicCollector

4-'Thermal-«T--1 Storage--J

Pump ,-IV

Condenser

iurbine= .

BatteryTelsa- Generato

Storage

4 7 V

Load

64

SCHOOL: University of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742

TEAM NUMBER: 121TEAM CAPTAIN: Michael KilpatrickFACULTY ADVISOR: Larry GasnerTELEPHONE: (301) 454-4593

PROJECT SUMMARYThis system uses the method of

gasifying combustible solids to poweran internal combustion engine which

drives an electrical generator.


OUTPUTIf system were supplied 73 kg of

hardwood or 50 kg of charcoal, it should

produce 36 kwh/day.

INNOVATIONThe system was to involve the gas-

ification of any combustible solid (wood,charcoal, coal, coke, refuse, straw, corncobs, cornstalks, or leaves) in a gasproducer. The resulting low BTU gas

would be cleaned, cooled, and used tofire an internal combustion engine poweredelectric generator.

C Oil-SteelWoolFilter

-

Air -- » 4-. Preheater

HeatReducer Exchanger

Cz-)./

Cyclone F7Separator -

- I-* eneratorStoageBattery

.-I -

InternalCombustionEngine

Load

65

SCHOOL: University of Oklahomar-- - '-- ='"'=" '".. '" -Z:Z... ., . . . -..... -,

Norman, Oklahoma 73019TEAM NUMBER: 124TEAM CAPTAIN: Mike BergeyFACULTY ADVISORS: Karl H. Bergey ./,PH...... - I. . 1

John Fagan W / 1 . : - 1TELEPHONE: (405) 325-5011*A ll' / I *4\

r * *2*',PROJECT SUMMARY AF= ...The system contains a single large

.,7 / 30.17*.vertical axis, articulated blade, wind ·turbine. The pitch of the blades iscontrolled in a manner that gives the

.-

turbine a very high efficiency. Afterpassing through a speed increaser, theoutput torque of the turbine is con-verted into 115 volts, 60 Hz electricalpower by means of a synchronous genera- g 'Ntor. ' af A

STORAGE

..45-- 1*IllilliBattery storage.

OUTPUT20 M "--,:-264 Z*FAi-#b. The turbine is rated at 7.5 kw of

1.7 -4:3 ..1. i'& 4 2#4, ·.t,i115 V AC electricity in a 10.3 m/s wind. ....:'6.=R%*=2'1.4.· -»„"r **r.=11

INNOVATIONThe rotor rests on a simplified and

improved support structure for verticalaxis turbines. The system has cyclicalpitch actuators to reduce the normalangle of attack variation through thecycle. Thus, an optimal angle of attackcan be maintained for an extended por-tion of each revolution. This maximizesturbine efficiency.

»1

=-r-..."- SV j · 'LfiktiFIRA

Wind 2, t>UTurbine f.r .......6 1./1

C===== - ===> try1 11 WI

V 'r 1 1

li «11 - . - .- . - *. 4

Operation -_* Speed GeneratorSensors - -'lu-1 Increaser

.AutomaticPower

System

Pitch - b Operation I V 4- GridControlSystem Transformer --0 Load

66

SCHOOL: University of Oklahoma :''Cr- _lilI..-'...'......'.'Ill.-I"..7-T. T... --- .--„....1-™-r----I .. -

Norman, Oklahoma 73019 1.. ·I,,..· .1. .*trr-, :fr:,.I:el". ; .'.:.':... t' t..'..3. I EL',rE · ·b.,4 .......... -'..

TEAM NUMBER: 127 i. . I.':.'Y,i'.ftd.... =. · .... .: , .... .., · ·' · -·i,i,•ts#ydw,:* · ··::'4·".1..'......Al

TEAM CO-CAPTAINS: Ricky PalmerLarry Palmer

FACULTY ADVISOR: Robert St. JohnTELEPHONE: (405) 321-6861

PROJECT SUMMARY K1-. 1.

1.. ··· 1.1.'...3,This system integrates the : f 1...... - - 4.concepts of the high torque, multi- ' - /, 4bladed wind turbine and the highspeed, two-bladed impeller into one " 4 4working unit. power is obtained by

1 444(2,driving alternators via belts around 'f.3 ,the rims of the multi-blade parts of , W

..2:,4 -3 1 «/ \. \the entire units.1 .-1

4

-r IJ 1

STORAGE *'

Battery storage.-,1. 1 -1

1

.,

OUTPUTThe actual output achieved at i.

average wind speeds is 0.5 to 2 kwat 24 V DC. / tw'<

INNOVATION E '.A :24.1The system integrates the con- 5

cepts of the low speed, high torque,multiblade wind turbine and a high Bspeed, two-bladed impeller into oneworking unit. i:,·., , 3.- · 11.,. -f'·

b. __-_--____ '71%S' ':--ub*v" r-: 1tr./.p-# lu 1

1

b,12 4412..- C "11 1 I

-1 9 1. . I 111 . . 2.'M ...1

t"' Wfb'.'. & 2 TW tkd#&*t* Whir'*r·· ··,I · m .' ·i ··„,„„,r· ..,-,2 ·:*

--- '.-»-Ele.(*R * .4...1 ....483Bicycle Wheel ' 3. LAN - . 40#*

.., )4

Turbine System1+Voltage BatteryRegulator Storage

Generator

Load

67

SCHOOL: University of FloridaGainesville, Florida 32611

TEAM NUMBER: 130TEAM CAPTAIN: Mindy HyattFACULTY ADVISOR: Vernon P. RoanTELEPHONE: (904) 392-0808

PROJECT SUMMARYSunlight heats solar collectors

which power the Rankine Cycle. Thepositive displacement expander inthe Rankine Cycle provides shaftwork which is utilized to run a gen-erator. Electrical power created iseventually stored for later use.


OUTPUTThe system was to produce 1 kw

of 115 V DC power.

INNOVATIONThe innovation of this project

was to be the use of a positive dis-placement expander instead of a con-ventional type turbine.

-tHot

- WaterSolarCollectors Storage

Pre-Heater

w c-iBoiler Cooling

Water

-

VaporSeparator

4Regenerator

4 4

t

BatteryGeneratoGear Box Storage

Load

68

SCHOOL: University of Wisconsin L SMilwaukee, Wisconsin 53218 f ...Ar'*

TEAM NUMBER: 133TEAM CAPTAIN: William Tyan

,», ..,»2 .

*.:·iFACULTY ADVISOR: I. Carl RomerTELEPHONE: (414) 466-1561

«PROJECT SUMMARY ./

A solar hot water heater is usedto warm an anaerobic digester which Mproduces methane gas. The methanegas, in turn, is used in an internalcombustion engine to power a genera-tor. Electricity is also producedby a wind-electric generator. Theelectricity produced by both these .-

'1 4-/-

systems is then stored in batteries. 9-... I.--- . . . P

.S, 1 \0./a ....k . '2STORAGEiva , .« I I - . . \3.....Battery and hot water storage. 'e'. -, '- /4

1*:.s,•• 9,1.: G_ ..2,# -... .... ,»*

OUTPUTThe wind turbine is designed to

produce .5 kw in a 5.14 m/s wind. Lfk-·.-'"-'.«'...4,:# -:..:, ... - ..:I.....'0 ... .

The completed digester would be cap- · I ·' '

able of producing 11.5 kwh/day.

INNOVATIONt 1A solar hot water heater is used 1

to warm an anaerobic digester whichproduces methane gas.

17

Wind v15

Mill

Generator , Rectifier :a ; I . : -. 4-I

4 * -

..= ../

1+D· ..7 : ·:„, 4 A x i'.i>/ I : . «': .., r.. 2, 4F- .... 4..;. f e;'.4-.. -7 .2...4.'''' '7,/4·....:..:: ·..:: t. '.. .--

' •«<··;2:·Si

1Methane CH 1 Battery

Voltage -t Load4Generator I Engine Generator Storage --

Regulato-

1

Solar-/4 Collector

Thermal

Storage

69

SCHOOL: University of Wisconsin at 1:'--r-

StoutMenomonie, Wisconsin 54751 i

TEAM NUMBER: 136TEAM CAPTAIN: Alan Zajac fFACULTY ADVISOR: James CollierTELEPHONE: (715) 232-1250 ,/

PROJECT SUMMARY\ 2 ·,il„ - 1The system utilizes a 2.5 kw

. 1wind generator as its only energysource. Energy produced by the sys- 1 / 1 Ktem will be stored in both primary 1and secondary storage components.

, I

The primary storage component will , mconsist of a 24 V DC battery bank ... 11 1+ .1and the secondary storage component a:i, '1 , ''4 , ,will consist of a high-speed flywheel.

I - . 4- r· W J.=-«.. „

4£A'-t.·I ' 4 . 4 2 4 "=r.... I

STORAGE r=....: -- 6 ; , . 9 ..I.%.9 ...4Battery storage.

4-41- . 11,4. ,- 4.

* -. / : .::..K : f»ft (,442.-OUTPUT .-

-»- .1The blades are designed to ex- . 3tract 2.5 kw of energy in an 8.03m/s wind, 24 V DC. , , Y N.

r - I

INNOVATION - 9% 4 i zBlades for the wind generator .ble., .,

are innovative because they are de- ' 1, '*1(-' '»signed for an area where the average ./ I.· 'l / .L·-=\ . r.

wind speed is low. The turbine sup- ' f - /Jail r. '2# . , '.4 ,<2 +(p

port tower is of octahedron design T-*.6,-'... - T ://563 / _.21constructed from steel tubing.

71:..92 . :/Ir.'. iM- -1 - - ------ 2 5-'-: .141&"*/mE -4 4: 44 4-4,1 ' '3:*'•'.Ar -, . 2' , 1-.i.I-

.....';.:- f'. " =NIF...,30,5/'679#Fie -1-1-5*- ,

.'.'., 4,„ t ...F:" ....*. - 351 -*. 7114

Wind -'.,35·. .. .·:3'1;.t,5-87-,(·. ....f:'12.'." ..6-.'. .6-<,.+181,«3jGenerator

9:4'.,I . . . 0... ... . . . -.:2. . - ... .. : '.1...rt'., ».*,Turbine

i.'·, i.- - : . .. 4 I . . . . . . ,1

0. ;- w .11 .. .-,4 .S V.

«-,4

- £'" "' AF:1 ' i\4<· .32.2,,I··.·,1' ,»g" -,P :9Storage

.' 4- AU ·'G-'.7 3 t.:. . 4 -' ..Pkf

... ' : ,1.,t, ..1,111 /* .62

Load \«1)

i - ' 1- - P

70

SCHOOL: Oregon State University .aCorvallis, Oregon 97331TEAM NUMBER: 142 ...f 1TEAM CAPTAIN: Richard DrollingerFACULTY ADVISOR: William E. Holley

L. -- 6- 8TELEPHONE: (503) 752-4836

PROJECT SUMMARY .. '1..'/Ai , 7'--- 1h -a,.1-1 =,8,.Re=-* r,

This system uses water to ab-sorb the heat from solar radiation phall#Filift' Ar' .Al SAN/MI...../.%422&9

and stores the energy as hot water :MI'Il'." All,lillilliwfib,3./mirlillillillilillilivililillmwpi

in large tanks. As power is needed,

it exchanges this heat energy with --*&668*--*-***u#mkdaimill"

pressurized Freon 11 (CC13F) turn-ing it into vapor that spins a tur-

bine-generator. In addition, there m .-*At"s:6 .,1=2...ia ,

is a wind-turbine-generator that helpsSupply power through ri set. wf l,ciLLeries. ...,244,41=3 ....:22:i':3. 1.224.. ..1'mitimalr* -,,.,

6WlaI .-W. ...STORAGE .Witi. 66 F . - 7. 1 · ·.'El

,,<«..W- .,The primary storage component is ..'.. 162£-:- -,a: ...........,./ t., " ji;e(*EN

a 4.5 cu.m. hot-water tank in conjunc-...em.'-......Ip-/ I1. - . . . ... ....'----*- I

, - 1, ;. *ii:.,----.:5tion with another cold-water tank ofequal size. Hot water from the solar

f.,. I>.... · : 1collectors is stnrpa in thp hnt-water P...ijff,V+ALLA * I. . I -

tank. The windmill uses 4 12-V bat- . r--, . de .-. f ,-'.....'.teries connected to produce a 24 v .:'

system. .- ..A

OUTPUTThe system is designed to produce ..da=

36 kwh/day of 24 V DC. / -- rImminfil. - W

INNOVATIONThe system has a cascading pond

solar collector for preheating, inter- P. ''

mediate heating flat-plate solar collec-, 4. 1 , 4,./

tors, and a parabolic trough solar3,111#,k'' 11 'Ilp' -1-* 1 - +collector for final stage heating. The, U ..... 4:. *'.. '.*... : % ' . , . '. .'..... 1energy storage system Includes a high -CM'*' 9'; CU 74

temperature water storage tank and a .t«*r... 31& -low temperature storage tank for used ia.W*Mwte....ba <1=low lemperature water. The wind tur- 941.48&**0'1./.3 9binc consists of uscd helicopter blades :=" D ., , .1

'»t.......=...'i...................... ., .....

and a modified helicopter gear box. imm/4.irtimi.mar.,......

Alternator

'--ijz.' EiE:Il" 13:::,31„„ Turbine

< Heat1Flat I

xchangePlateMidrange cz»-1Heater

Cascading Low IL-1-1 Water Solar ITemperatuTeFlat Plate -4-istorage 1Preheater k-i-)

ControlPanel Battery

StorageBank

WindMill Generator r:1 13- rl

Inve t"-, «IJ l_31-11 115 Vacl|

Load

L-1

71

SCHOOL: Oregon State University *

Corvallis, Oregon 97331TEAM NUMBER: 151TEAM CAPTAIN: Eric VogelFACULTY ADVISOR: William HolleyTELEPHONE: (503) 753-1261

PROJECT SUMMARYThe foundation of this project

is an innovative type of heat ex-changer in which a condenser andboiler are assembled back-to-backwith a common wall rather than beingindependent components. This arrange-ment allows the heat liberated inthe condenser to be the heat sourcefor the boiler. The steam from theboiler then goes to the turbine/gen-erator.

STORAGEHot concentrated calcium chloride

is stored for use at night.

OUTPUTThe system is designed for an

ouput of 1 kw, 115 V DC.

INNOVATIONThis solar energy process, dessi-

cant collection, is an integration ofbasic concepts and hardware well knownand widely used in present industrialprocesses, but not previously appliedto use with solar energy. The novelheat exchanger design allows 8 sq.m.of heat exchange area to be packagedinto 0.063 cu.m. of volume.

»Turbine : Generator -- Load

St£am

Water37' 1 .

Solar11 1/High Low Evaporation /Pressure Pressure

Surface Steam Steam t

CaC13Solution

HEAT EXCHANGER A Storage

Boiler

Condenser

Heat I __n ,-Conductingti Pump umpWall

72

SCHOOL: University of AlabamaHuntsville, Alabama 35807

TEAM NUMBER: 154TEAM CAPTAIN: Earl LochrleinFACULTY ADVISOR: D. B. Wallace

S. T. WuTELEPHONE: (205) 895-6323[NOT AT FINAL TEST EVENT]

PROJECT SUMMARYThe system was to consist of

a 3-bladed, horizontal axis windmill.The shaft was to be coupled bypulleys to a generator to produceelectricity. The 1.83 m. long bladeswere to be made from fiberglassedwood.


OUTPUTThe system output was designed

to be 24 V DC with a maximum currentof 100 amps.

INNOVATIONThe blades were to vary pitch

for maximum efficiency in the 2.2to 8.9 m/s wind range. This would beaccomplished by spring-loading theblades along their axes.

Wind Battery LoadMill GeneratorStorage

73

SCHOOL: UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA , - :. I ./

Gainesville, Florida 326011TEAM NUMBER: 157 -

iTEAM CAPTAIN: Bill MisiaszekFACULTY ADVISOR: Vernon P. Roan · i' . ' .\< ITELEPHONE: (904) 373-6406 *./p .-

PROJECT SUMMARYWind turbine to 24 V alternator

to lead acid storage batteries. ,i =

STORAGELead acid batteries. , : j1

1/ \ 1OUTPUT -JThe system is designed to pro-

duce 2.0 kw (24 V DC) in a 9.54 m/swind.

INNOVATION . t ,Innovation is in the pitch i » 4change (for maximizing efficiency)

and overspeed device of this system,,., 11

/and the blade partitions which mini-mized vortex shedding. I./.-/

# ' , I\4

\ i

..-

BladePartitions

b Gearing AlternatorStorage

Battery

Rectifier and

Regulator

Load

74

SCHOOL: University of FloridaGainesville, Florida 32601

TEAM NUMBER: 160TEAM CAPTAIN: Bill MonroeFACULTY ADVISOR: Vernon P. RoanTELEPHONE: (904) 375-6441

PROJECT SUMMARYThis system consists of a two I

cylinder diesel generating plant con-verted to run on a liquid and powderedcoal solution. Power produced is dis-sipated as heat in a bank of 1000 ohmheating elements. Power output may bevaried in 1 kw increments.

STORAGENo storage.

OUTPUTThe output of this system was

designed to be 7.5 kw at 110 or 220V AC.

INNOVATIONThe system was to consist of a

two cylinder diesel generating plantconverted to run on a solution ofcarrier liquid and powdered coal.

Coal Fuel

Supply/

Engine 1 1,

Battery Load

StorageInverter

VoltageRegulation

75

SCHOOL: University of Alabama .. --r---*:---- - --,-2- - ·.--..1, T=,

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35468 11

TEAM NUMBER: 163TEAM CAPTAIN: Alan GunterFACULTY ADVISOR: Walter J. SchaetzleTELEPHONE: (205) 345-6507

PROJECT SUMMARYThe project consists of a

Darrieus-type vertical axis windmillconnected to a DC generator with abattery storage system. The systemwill self-start with the help ofSavonius rotors located on the mastof the Darrieus blades. The control /'system regulates current and voltage /to the batteries as well as automati- %

cally stalling the system in case ofoverspeed. The system can be used

with or without a tower, depending on <the location.


OUTPUT rThe windmill is designed to pro-

duce 20 kw per day (24 V DC) wherewind speeds average 4.77 m/s. 1

INNOVATION The system is self-starting, withthe help of sheet metal flaps attachedto the rotor. The tower is an aluminumpole with a crow's mast for easy main-tenance. 1

StartingFlaps Load

3-Voltage BatteryGearing Controls Alternator ---1, Recti fier-1 Regulator -t Storage

76

SCHOOL: KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY INNOVATIONManhattan, Kansas 66506 Rotor modules can be easily added

TEAM NUMBER: 181 to the system to meet increased powerTEAM CAPTAIN: Reginald Moore needs.FACULTY ADVISOR: Gary JohnsonTELEPHONE: (913) 532-5600[HARDWARE NOT BROUGHT TO FINAL TEST

EVENT]

PROJECT SUMMARYA Savonius wind turbine made of

four rotor modules is used to generateelectricity. Each of the 4 rotors aredesigned to be 3.05 m. high and 1.83 m.in diameter to make standard size metalsheets useable. They are slaved to-gether by placing the upper ones directlyover the lower ones, then using a 4.13cm. square key coupler, the rotor shaftsare coupled together. The coupledshafts drive an alternator through 2gearboxes. The top horizontal beamsupports the crane hoods for rotor in-stallation and the automotive drum brakes.

STORAGENo storage.

OUTPUTAn 11 m/s input wind is designed

to produce a 5 kw of 240 v AC electricalpower.

0 0 0

WindTurbines

0 0Quick Release Joints

0 0 0 o(1;:1:221'j Load0»

Controls

77

CE»illk 5

-

A

a."e.%..

Arti Z :* I. h'.-

4 13.....<t• *#. I .,99.-6' I

4/ - -1 -44 .1 *r*..1:<'rf 1 ,

%-44:-

..'

ti77.r

1'1

4% 0 *

1 11.

.'.qt».

Final Testing

The Final Test Event was the climax of unload and assemble the projects onthe two year Energy Resource Alterna- the site. A consortium of localtives II Competition. At the week professional engineering societieslong event, June 9-16, 1977, the time, found homestays and liaison engineerseffort and ideas put forth by student for each team. Homestays consistedteams were tested and evaluated by of Richland residents who opened theirexperts in the energy field. homes to team members for sleeping

and showering during the event.In September of 1976, the Coordinating Liaison engineers were local en-Committee started the search for the gineers who volunteered to provideFinal Test Site. Stringent criteria technical assistance and equipmentfor facilities, services, and weather to help teams solve problems encoun-were formulated to evaluate the tered during project assembly andpotential sites. These included an operation at the event. A liaisonaverage daily wind speed of 4.5 m/s, engineer was assigned to each teama minimum solar incidence of 700 and often doubled as the team'sW/m2, an unobstructed field of at homestay.least five acres with electrical andwater services, low cost housing and Teams were encouraged to construct,food services, and strong local test, and debug their projects priorenthusiasm for the Final Test Event. to the Final Test Event. Last minute

improvements, damage to equipment inFive potential sites were finally transit, plus multiple other problemsconsidered. Each site was visited by required the availabilities ofthe Coordinating Committee to deter- machine shops fQr team use. Localmine how well the site met the site industry and the school districtrequirements. This information was volunteered the use of their shops topresented to the ERA II Advisory the ERA II teams, and often providedBoard at its second meeting in machinists for difficult jobs. ForOctober 1976, for a final decision example, West Seneca High School'son site selection. By unanimous trailer overturned while enroute toconsent, the Board agreed that the the Final Test Event. EnthusiasticEnergy Research and Development support form their local communityAdministration-Richland Operations provided funds to replace equipmentshould host the Final Test Event. destroyed in the accident. InThe Richland, Washington, site exhi- Richland, the J. A. Jones Construc-bited the best combination of tion Company rebuilt their trailer,weather, facilities, services and the school district shops providedenthusiasm of all the sites con- tools and space to rebuild thesidered. destroyed equipment, and their

liaison engineer located moreThe Final Test Event Site was a 7 acre distilled water so their projectparking lot owned by the Richland could continue to function.Public School District and located Oregon State University manufacturedacross the street from the Joint some special tapered pins at theCenter for Graduate Study in Richland. school district shops and had anThe Coordinating Committee offices and elbow clamp machined at J. A. Jonesjudging rooms were all located in the Company shops. Gas regulators andJoint Center for Graduate Study. methane were obtained by the liaison

engineer helping Georgia Institute ofDuring the ensuing eight months, Technology. Woodruff keys were lostextensive preparations were made to in the gravel and replaced for theaccomodate the teams and projects at University of Wisconsin at Madisonthe Final Test Event. In March 1977, by J. A. Jones and a burned outa questionnaire was sent to each team blower was replaced for Madison byto determine the number of people their liaison engineer. The abovecoming to the event, lot size, services and many more were providedequipment, and any special support to teams during the Final Test Event.teams needed to assemble and operate Many projects would not have beentheir projects. With this information operational without these variedin hand, the Coordinating Committee sources of help.and the ERDA hosts commenced the taskof fulfilling the teams needs. Team registration began Thursday

morning, June 9, 1977 and continuedThe site utilities were installed by through Saturday, June 11, 1977,the City of Richland. Local industry at the Joint Center for Graduateand the city provided equipment to Study in Richland. The barbecue on

79

Friday Evening, held on the banks of cially available components, and 5the Columbia River, was the first points for innovative storageofficial function of the Final Test methods. The group discussions aidedEvent. The informal outdoor setting in removing individual biases andgave teams a chance to get acquainted established a common basis of scoreswith competing teams, their home- within each group. This helped tostays, and their liaison engineers. reduce the tendency for one or moreCongressman Mike McCormack gave the judges to score consistently lowerWelcoming Address. He talked about or higher than others.the future use and production ofenergy in the United States and the After each group marked their scores,activities of the government in they assembled in a single largesolving the energy crisis. meeting to establish a common basis

of scores among all projects at theFrom Friday through Tuesday, break- Final Test Event. By doing so,fast and lunch were available from the problem of one energy groupthe school district cafeteria for scoring consistently higher or lowerparticipants and judges. The was averted.cafeteria was located next to thetesting field and provided con- Upon completion of the renormaliza-venient and speedy service. The tion of the team scores, the topcafeteria was also available for half-dozen scores were re-evaluated onteam conferences and the daily team site by a heterogeneous group ofcaptain meetings. judges to determine the winners of

the particular innovation awards.Saturday afternoon, the logistics of The individual team scores wereproject scoring were discussed with retained for their contribution toteam captains. Projects were judged a team's overall scores.in four areas: (1) Innovation,(2) Marketability, (3) Economics, and Marketability judging focused on a(4) Performance. Actual judging one hour formal presentation made bystarted on Sunday and continued each team to a panel of judges. Thethrough Tuesday, with Wednesday judges were divided into groups re-reserved for analyzing the results. presenting each energy form: wind,

solar or organic. Using any audio-The Innovation judging took place on visual format desired, each teamMonday and Tuesday. Judges from discussed with the judges the keyacross the country (appendix I) with marketability points considered inexpertise in engineering and alter- scoring: (1) the results of thenate energy systems evaluated each teams' market analysis in evaluatingproject's innovation in two cate- the potential market for the teams'gories: (1) Innovative ideas, and equipment, (2) the design simplicity(2) Innovative ways of fabricating of the hardware, (3) the safetythe system either from original considerations employed in the de-design or by the modification of sign, (4) the system environmentalcommercially available components impact, (5) maintenance requirements(appendix G.) and, (6) the durability of the

system. In addition to the teams'Each team provided the judges with an presentation, the judges reviewed

I abstract covering the innovations each project on site. Each group ofincorporated in the project. With judges scored the individual team bythis abstract in hand, one group of assigning an overall marketabilityjudges reviewed all the solar pro- score from a possible of 20 points.jects on site, while others reviewed The marketability judges alsowind projects, and organic systems. determined the expected economicTeam members fielded questions from life of the system in years.the judges and the projects wereclosely scrutinized. After review- The Economics scoring of projects wasing all projects in one alternate divided into three areas: (1) Busbarenergy division, each specialized Electricity Costs, (2) Net Energygroup of judges discussed the pro- Accounting, and (3) Exotic Materialjects in a group meeting and Requirements. To evaluate the busbarindividually assigned each team costs of electrical power generated bytheir innovation scores: 13 points the projects, the teams supplied costfor innovative ideas, 12 points for data on the projects construction..innovative fabrication of original The project assembly was broken intodesign or modification of commer- steps. Each step represented the

80

construction and/or incorporation of (12.5) points, and peaking energy out-the component into the team's energy put (12.5) points. If a team pro-system. The cost data for each duced 20 kW hours in a 24 hour period,step was reported as the material they received full total energy outputcosts, the number of labor hours, and points. If the team was able tolabor type required to assemble and position 16 kW hours of the 20 kW hourincorporate the component into the total in the peaking region of theproject. Knowing the material and ERA II load demand curve, (the regionlabor costs for each individual step, between 6:30 and 22:30 above thethe total assembled cost of the 0.75 kW line,) (see the Rules andteam's project could be estimated. Guidelines and newsletter no. 4)Using cost multipliers to reflect the team received the additional 12.5manufacturing costs (overhead, profit points or a portion thereof forand working capital charges,) an peaking energy output. Energyestimate of the market price of the storage systems were encouraged as asystem was made. Then by amorti- means of meeting the peaking points.zing the price of the energy system Starting in the fully charged mode,over the economic life of the any energy discharged from the storagesystem, a rough annual cost of the device during peak demand periods hadenergy system to the consumer was to be made up by system rechargingcalculated. Additive costs were off peak periods.included to cover taxes, maintenance,estimated life, etc. and the annual The 24 hour testing period beganenergy produced by the system, Sunday at 8:00 am. Teams were requiredby which an estimate of the project's to supply a resistive load bank,busbar electricity cost was made. instrumentation to meter electrical

energy supplied to the load bank,Every project received points for the and instrumentation to measure thebusbar cost of electricity by its energy entering and leaving the teams'position in the distribution of storage system. At 15 minute in-busbar costs (Figure 1) for all pro- tervals during the 24 hours, teamjects. Maximum possible points for members took readings of electricala project's energy cost was 12.5 energy being produced and electricalpoints. energy entering or leaving the storage

system. This information was compiledThe energy cost of the assembled and scored for all the teams by aproject was calculated in BTU's mobile computer, supplied and mannedby using the list of contruction onsite by the Battelle Northwest La-materials utilized in each project. boratories. Every three hours teamsThe time period needed to pay back received a graph of their performance,an energy sum equivalent to twice a plot showing how well they wereits energy cost was calculated by meeting the demand load curve, andusing the annual energy production their accumulative scores. Overallof the system. Dependent on the scores and power produced for eachnumber of years to double its team were updated and posted eachpayback, different points were allo- hour.cated to each team. The maximumpoints available were 7.5 points. Twelve teams were prepared for the

first 24-hour performance testA comparison was made of the exotic on Sunday, the remaining awaited thematerials demanded by each project second 24 hour performance testto the materials' domestic U.S. period.supply, and points were allocatedcontingent on how many times demand Sunday was the first Open House forexceeded supply for a specific the public. Over 1500 people visitedmaterial (appendix G). the site during the day. Several

TV stations filmed the projects andThe cost data was entered into a interviewed participants for thespecial computer program (appendix evening news.M) written by the CoordinatingCommittee to automatically and con-sistently evaluate the three sections On Monday, teams rested from the 24

of economic scoring. hour test and prepared their projectsfor the second day of testing. OnTuesday, 19 teams participated in the

Performance scoring was divided into second day of testing. The teamstwo sections: total energy output that did not participate had experi-

81

enced technical difficulties thatcould not be resolved at the FinalTest Event site. At the end of thesecond day of 24 hour performancetesting, each teams' best resultsfrom the two days were accepted asprovisional test results. For thoseteams using commercial fuels in lieuof digestion produced gas (these couldnot be transported across statelines,) a special panel of judgescompared their performance testingresults to what the gas producersystems were capable of producing.

The teams who had done homesite testingof their projects submitted the home-site data as performance testingresults. The homesite data wasreviewed by the special panel ofjudges to verify power output claims.Based on the reviews, their performanceresults were appropriately adjusted.

The weather was not the most coopera-tive element of the competition. Thesunshine during the competition wasexcellent. It was always hot, sunnyand dry. The wind, however, was farbelow normal for this period. Althoughpast weather records gave less thana 10% chance that both 24 hour testdays would be calm, it remained calmthroughout the period.

Wednesday was the second Open House.More than 450 people arrived at thesite to inspect the projects. Toursof the nuclear and solar facilitieson the Hanford Reservation wereavailable Wednesday morning andafternoon for teams. Enthusiasm andanticipation was high at the AwardsBanquet held on Wednesday evening.All the teams, liaison engineers,homestays and people who helped withthe competition attended a salmondinner at the Hanford House Hotelsponsored by the Tri-City NuclearIndustrial Council. Donald E.Anderson, Atlantic Richfield,talked on "The Energy Crisis: AProblem in Communications?"

Following keynote address, the Coor-dinating Committee presented theawards to the winning teams.Thursday, June 16, 1977, the teamsdisassembled their projects andpacked up their gear for the returntrip home.

82

bl

.FJ4

LL

, 64

P.. - 7.- 1'

. 2 ' I '. .. --g- *<

I.hz.... ".-.='«,

b:Z.1-'A*. ,'...,.......

.0. - ./ :':91:",.., ..'.:'.n:,P ....,,. : 0 imi Y'...It , 1, 147:.....it,9, 9-i, 1 "diHAUJA

4.1 .8 #tz - 1 1 ; 1. '.S"1 - 9.I .»': 1-,p

.: t./

.,1. rp.R wl.

I .- V*Ii»,-, 1

= . 0 , lil06 N«i,71,1.i.:t,

»t'€i.:, · ,„,4.'0" ". '.. ...,..Ir., i. • F:, '- 3 ·· · · <.A*Xmt#

0.1#.04 3:, ·'i'f/'. '..,t:'. 1.:.'..:....:j.. -,4 »

A ."t"th . 1, , 1

' - :'. '1 9.i .

, . 1.:.....9:.'. , 1 ini-C - 3.* , 'Nfl-r .Plan , 1 1

000 +V.'." e .'1

I.

-

.:.- '.4, 14/ Ti.*21**' . · P. .

ff :24:·.. , '«J t

...-... «' ......... .,lil I...17:,., "g. '24' (,i'·

·i·h'*,t· ha . 4.,2,/" '.1.1, ......2 , i-

7.,r ... ' .l e .2.f; ...9 .. 9. ,

- i · V,·''I· \% .. 1. 1, I :. 1:-. s

-66*

The awards for the competition werebased on two scores: (1) the project'stotal score, and (2) the project'sindividual innovation score.

The project's total score was thealgebraic sum of the four individualscores for each project: (1) Inno-vation, (2) Marketability, (3) Per-formance, and (4) Economics.

The Grand Awards were given to thethree projects with the largesttotal score. The receipt of a GrandAward excluded that team from winningother awards to avoid repetition.

For the divisional awards, the projectswere divided into categories accordingto their alternate energy source:solar, wind, organic, and combination.The Combination category containedprojects which had multiple energyinputs (i.e., solar and wind, etc.)Within each category, the projectswere ranked by total score to determineplacement.

The innovation awards were determinedby a special judging panel. TheFirst Solar Innovation Award was notgiven since the Grand Innovation Awardwent to a solar team.

84

OVERALL PROJECT SCORES

TEAM TOTALSCHOOL NUMBER SCORE

Kansas State University 106 82.40University of Oklahoma 124 68.70West Virginia University 34 68.00Georgia Institute of Technology 84 63.90Washington State University 19 59.70Georgia Institute of Technology 90 58.20University of Wisconsin at Madison 112 58.10University of Florida at Gainesville 157 57.90Midwestern State University 97 56.80Southern Methodist University 43 55.40Washington State University 70 54.00Oregon State university 151 54.00University of Wisconsin at Stout 136 54.00University of Oklahoma 127 53.10University of California at Berkeley 100 53.00University of Houston 10 51.80Amarillo College 25 50.50West Seneca High School and Buffalo State University 76 50.10Georgia Institute of Technology 93 49.50Oregon State University 142 49.30University of Wisconsin at Green Bay 28 48.60University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee 133 48.40Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 22 48.40Rutgers University 31 42.90University of Texas at Austin 64 39.50Georgia Institute of Technology 81 39.30Kansas State University 181 32.30Massachusetts Institute of Technology 79 26.90

85

ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES II

AWARDS

GRAND AWARD

Kansas State University, # 106 First Place

University of Oklahoma, # 124 Second Place

West Virginia University, # 34 Third Place

INNOVATION GRAND AWARD

University of Texas @ Austin, # 64

WIND DIVISION

University of Florida @ Gainesville, # 157 First Place

Southern Methodist University, # 43 Second Place

Washington State University, # 70 Third Place

University of Wisconsin @ Stout, # 136 Third Place

WIND INNOVATION

University of Oklahoma, # 124 First PlaceUniversity of Florida @ Gainesville, # 157 Second Place

Washington State University, # 70 Third Place

SOLAR DIVISION

Georgia Institute of Technology, # 90 First PlaceMidwestern State University, # 97 Second Place

Oregon State University, # 151 Third Place

SOLAR INNOVATION

Georgia Institute of Technology, # 90 Second PlaceMidwestern State University, # 97 Third Place

ORGANIC DIVISION

Georgia Institute of Technology, # 84 First Place

Washington State University, # 19 Second Place

University of Wisconsin @ Madison, # 112 Third Place

ORGANIC INNOVATION

University of Wisconsin @ Madison, # 112 First Place

Washington State University, # 19 Second Place

University of Wisconsin @ Green Bay, # 28 Third Place

COMBINATION SYSTEMS DIVISION

West Seneca High School & Buffalo State University, # 76 First Place

Oregon State University, # 142 Second Place

University of Wisconsin @ Milwaukee, # 133 Third Place

86

POWER PRODUCTION AND BUSBAR ELECTRICITY COSTS

OF SYSTEMS AT THE FINAL TEST EVENT

BUSBAR COSTENERGY PRODUCED OF

IN 24 HOURS ELECTRICITYTEAM (kWh) ($/kWh)

University of Houston, # 10 00.00 00.31

Washington State University, # 19 00.00 00.10

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, # 22 1.00 00.33

Amarillo College, # 25 00.60 00.16

University of Wisconsin @ Green Bay, # 28 00.00 22.67

Rutgers University, # 31 00.35 00.81

West Virginia University, # 34 00.00 00.09

Southern Methodist University, # 43 00.00 00.11University of Texas @ Austin, # 64 00.00 5.70

Washington State University, # 70 00.00 00.05West Seneca High School & Buffalo State University, # 76 1.60 2.70

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, # 79 00.00 00.39

Georgia Institute of Technology, # 81 00.00 292.00Georgia Institute of Technology, # 84 10.00 00.12

Georgia Institute of Technology, # 90 00.00 00.12

Georgia Institute of Technology, # 93 00.00 00.09Midwestern State University, # 97 00.00 00.15

University of California @ Berkeley, # 100 00.40 00.15Kansas State University, # 106 20.00 00.19

University of Wisconsin @ Madison, # 112 00.00 00.31

University of Oklahoma, # 124 2.72 00.06

University of Oklahoma, # 127 00.32 00.04

University of Wisconsin @ Milwaukee, # 133 00.10 00.40

University of Wisconsin @ Stout, # 136 00.16 00.07

Oregon State University, # 142 00.00 00.17

Oregon State University, # 151 00.00 00.08

University of Florida @ Gainesville, # 157 00.20 00.16University of Alabama @ Tuscaloosa, # 163 00.00 00.04Kansas State University, # 181 00.00 00.32

NOTE: The cost of electricity was computed using the system's designedoutput. The design output was not necessarily achieved at the FinalTest Event.

The amount of energy produced in the 24 hour period represents eitherthe best performance of the system on the two test days, or verifiedtest data taken at the system's homesite location.

87

m *m mFi- 3 i i .1

,-Fam W m % E M m B Id2 N m R

8 m DO13# 1/867

Kansas State Univ. 106 21.0 15.1 7.5 5.0 12.5 21.3 82.4

Univ. of Oklahoma 124 1.7 20.0 7.5 5.0 12.5 22.0 68.7

West Virginia Univ. 34 0.0 19.0 7.5 5.0 12.5 24.0 68.0

Georgia Institute of Tech. 84 8.9 15.6 7.5 5.0 12.5 14.4 63.9

Washington State Univ. 19 0.0 12.3 7.5 5.0 12.5 22.4 59.7


U. of Wisconsin, Madison 112 0.0 14.1 7.5 0.0 12.5 24.0 58.1

U. of Florida, Gainesville 157 0.1 15.9 7.5 5.0 12.5 16.9 57.9

Midwestern State Univ. 97 0.0 13.0 7.5 5.0 12.5 18.8 56.8

Southern Methodist Univ. 43 0.0 17.3 7.5 5.0 12.5 13.1 55.4

Washington State Univ. 70 0.0 15.0 7.5 5.0 12.5 14.0 54.0

Oregon State Univ. 151 0.0 10.4 7.5 5.0 12.5 18.5 54.0

U. of Wisconsin, Stout 136 0.1 17.4 7.5 5.0 12.5 11.5 54.0

Univ. of Oklahoma 127 0.2 15.6 7.5 5.0 12.5 12.3 53.1

U. of California, Berkeley 100 0.3 17.0 7.5 5.0 12.5 10.7 53.0

University of Houston 10 0.0 14.4 7.5 5.0 12.5 12.4 51.8

Amarillo College 25 0.4 17.5 7.5 5.0 12.5 7.6 50.5

West Seneca High School& Buffalo State Univ. 76 3.0 20.9 7.5 5.0 0.0 13.7 50.1


Oregon State University 142 0.0 10.2 7.5 5.0 12.5 14.1 49.3

U. of Wisconsin, Green Bay 28 0.0 16.8 5.0 5.0 0.0 21.8 48.6

U. of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 133 0.1 17.0 7.5 5.0 6.0 12.8 48.4

Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. 22 0.7 13.3 5.6 5.0 6.0 17.8 48.4

Rutgers University 31 0.2 19.6 7.5 5.0 3.0 7.6 42.9 1

Univ. of Texas, Austin 64 0.0 11.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 23.0 39.5


Kansas State University 181 0.0 0.0 7.5 5.0 6.0 13.8 32.3

Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. 79 0.0 7.6 0.0 5.0 6.0 8.3 26.9

88

I CHAPILI 2 7

I.

Mt .-41/ .

-r L=W

#2*'1:.1

\

.-8 , =·et----. .:- -------„--T= - - . --4.---e-....# f „ . ' ..ta..1.4 ./- 41. fIL

---,4*-4-r , ·..C·,... 1.-..--2· · - - I. .- ... . . - ,»*., MT \. .. ..· --*AR,1,·. :2.93·"·'M..- I 4 -- .9

1.

FA« *A---„ 13.5 . L-.--1, gl 1121 'r- I ... . 4

-· ' " t' . #, 549 . i./fl V.B-n.

'1: »=..t I .

9,1 .. .

/' 9. 1 \Ii/- '/44/'6. . j . . . L..,4. k 275/ft· 477

a -2. ....... . ' r ' -f /1. ·-6-':/.' ' \ ·-,1,.f . -· .'1.L )<

..7..11./311'.:44, t., ,k/..,

.

./ \,,= r -e .1P ./ 8 ..'9 . *66 .. 4/

•t

S·

i'·

ft.AJ *

6 464*L ... . 4,f.· .·,b"... . ..

*4.:403:"11,1.obbev. ./1 441.,2,11'.t, :r.1:4 --,if -,f'.1, *:'.....

4:1 •F.·/·.·"l·f''Sll.#f ,>. .se#B,-·.#2.«**·1 -.·vi·.2..:- ··'.:···. ..... .» -'4:fi

1.vt-1- ,4-A-2 .53-:.P*-....-Aijw.3,,"::.:

Symposial&11

The ERA II competition sponsored two competition. Further on in thesymposia. The first symposium served Symposium, members of the Coordinatingas an introduction to the ERA II Committee gave presentations on thecompetition. Lectures by energy expectations in the project Designexperts introduced the teams to the Proposals, which teams were to submitdefinitions of alternate energy for grant consideration. Professorsources, alternate energy avail- David Stock, Faculty Advisor to theability, conversion to electricity, Coordinating Committee, moderatedand the storage of energy. A spe- a Faculty Advisor meeting which dis-cial presentation on creative en- cussed the effective organization,gineering encouraged innovation in motivation, and financing of SCOREthe student projects. Meetings were student teams.conducted to discuss the responsi-bilities of teams, the Coordinating The Keynote Presentation was made byCommittee, competition finances Dr. John Sununu, Chairman of the Boardand the importance of team fund- of Directors of SCORE. Dr. Sununuraising. underlined the importance of hardware

design and fabrication. He emphasizedThe second symposium centered around that the development of a project fromworkshop sessions for the teams with an original idea to an operatingexperts from the industrial, govern- system is the toughest part of en-mental and academic fields. The gineering. He stressed that manyteams discussed problems encountered alternative energy resources (wind,in the design, construction and solar, and refuse, for instance) areassembly of their projects. The best suited for use in small energylogistics of the Final Test Event systems rather than large centralizedwere presented and the details of power plants due to their nearlyproject scoring and awards were uniform distribution over the earth'sexplained. surface. He urged teams to start

working immediately in anticipation ofBoth symposia helped to generate the the most often heard phrase at anynecessary cohesiveness and esprit SCORE final test event, "We could havede corps that improved team finished if we'd had one more week."communication and mutual understanding.

Mr. F. Burton Sellers, Manager of theA report was issued after the termina- Patents Division of the Texacotion of each symposium. Both reports Development Corporation discussedwere approximately fifty pages and innovative idea generation and thecontained information presented in techniques used to promote creativeeach lecture or workshop. Their thinking. He examined methods suchprimary use was in relaying informa- as brainstorming, which can overcometion to teams and interested indi- the roadblocks to new ideas and leadviduals who could not attend the to innovative solutions.symposiums.

An introductory talk on solar and windenergy was given by Dean Eckhoff,Director of the Center for EnergyStudy at Kansas State University. He

SYMPOSIUM I covered the availability of theseresources and the ways in which they

The entourage was welcomed to the Uni- are utilized. Gerald Parker of Ok-versity of Oklahoma by John Fagan, lahoma State University discussed theProfessor of Electrical Engineering details of systems using solar energyat the University. Mark Radtke, Pre- and Herman Drees, of the Pinsonsident of SCORE, gave an interesting Energy Corporation, spoke about systemsreview of the history of SCORE, which harness energy from the wind.beginning with the pre-SCORE (1970)Clean Air Car Race and concluding withthe ERA I Final Test Event. A review of organic fuels other than I

petroleum and natural gas was presentedJoe Eschbach, Chairman of the Coor- by James Green of the University ofdinating Committee, introduced the Pittsburgh. He campared the avail-Energy Resource Alternatives II (ERA ability of the resources, processesII) Competition. He spoke of the which convert them to various usefulorganizational structure of SCORE, forms (i.e., solvent refining,the responsibilities of those digestors, coal gasification, etc.),involved and the objectives of the and systems using these varied forms.

90

Conversion to Electrical Power was Delbert M. Fowler, Regional Adminis-discussed by Dr. William Eaton. Dr. trator of Region VI for the FederalEaton commented on electrical genera- Energy Administration delivered thetors, its advantages and disadvantages, Keynote Address. He presented datamethods of production, storage and concerning energy consumption in theconversion efficiencies. He was U.S. Dave Stock, Professor atfollowed by Martin Smith, of United Washington State University and ad-Engineers, who spoke about economics visor to the ERA II Coordinatingin Engineering. He used the economics Committee, succeeded the Keynoteof nuclear power plants as an example. Address. He directed himself towards

the personal objectives involvedA presentation on systems integration with each project, the objectives(how to match system components to of Symposium II, and the overalleach other) was given by Professor objectives of SCORE.Roy Kaplow of the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology. He commented Innovation was discussed by Hankthat, "what is often called 'common Wales of the Space Division of thesense'...may not be altogether General Electric Company. He lookedcommon." Some of the topics he touched at innovation as a vehicle of changeon were unnecessary precision, in order to improve value. Mr.controls, economics, and problem Wales proceeded to identify the commonsolving. obstacles to creativity and the

methods through which innovation isbrought forth.A discussion on heat engines was

presented by William Martini of theJoint Center for Graduate Study in Robert P. Beals, Professor of Indus-Richland, Washington. Heat engines trial Engineering at Texas A&Mof all types were covered with par- University, gave a useful talk onticular attention given to the project management. Participants wereselection of the proper engine for shown how to use the Critical PathERA II projects. Method (CPM) for project planning,

the Gantt Chart, and the ProgramThe final presentation of the first Evaluation and Review Techniquesymposium was given by Philip 0. (PERT).

Jarvinen from the Lincoln Laboratoryat the Massachusetts Institute of Generators were discussed by R. D.Technology. The topic was storage Chenoweth, Professor of Electricaltechniques for use with electric Engineering at Texas A&M University.power. Mechanical, thermal, chemical Dr. Chenoweth mentioned the charac-

teristics of various types of gener-and electrical storage were reviewed.The potential storage capacity of ators, particularly those which mighteach type was noted and methods were be useful for ERA II projects.discussed for conversion of storedenergy to electrical power. Symposium II focused more heavily on

Workshop sessions than Symposium I.The intent of the Workshops was toexamine the design details of systemsusing alternative energy resourcesand to solve design and constructionproblems that teams might encounterwith their projects.

SYMPOSIUM II The solar workshop was conducted byJames Colthart of the Shell Develop-

Symposium II was hosted by the ment Corporation. Dr. Colthart beganUniversity of Houston at its Center the session with a discussion on thefor Continuing Education on Febru- economics of solar energy and itsary 4 and 5, 1977. future potential, followed by an

extensive question and answerThe second symposium opened with a session.Welcoming Address by the AssociateDean of the Cullen College of Running concurrently with the solarEngineering and by Dr. Wallace workshop was a workshop concernedHoneywell who is on the Board of with the use of coal for energy.Directors of SCORE. Richard Aseltine, The session was led by Paul Scottthe new President of SCORE, followed of the U.S. Energy Research and De-with his thoughts on the competition. velopment Administration (ERDA)

91

Fossil Energy Division. After a with those topics, the oralbrief discussion on coal and the steps presentations required for each teamERDA is taking in the development of at the Final Test Event were discussed.coal as a viable energy source, Dr.Scott fielded a variety of questions.

The wind workshop was conducted byRobert Dodge of Automatic PowerIncorporated, a veteran in the fieldof wind energy. He recounted thehistory of wind turbines and de-scribed the Aerowatt turbine whichhe had brought with him. He answereda variety of questions pertainingto vibration, controls, and thevarious types of energy output.

Jack Matson, Professor of CivilEngineering at the University ofHouston, gave participants some in-sight on methane producers. Herevealed the potential of methaneproduction by stating that in theU.S. alone, there are covered land-fills producing 10,000,000 cubicfeet of gas per day. He then turnedto such topics as methane storage,limiting nutrients, and thecorrosion hazards associatedwith methane production.

The concluding workshop was directedby Bill Smith, Manager of BatteryProduct Planning for ESB Batteries.Since most teams intended to storeenergy in batteries, this workshopconcentrated on batteries as astorage system. Through the use ofgraphs, the characteristics ofstorage batteries were discussed withparticular attention paid tocharging. This was followed by aquestion and answer period.

Bill Cawley, of the U.S. ERDA RichlandOperation Office, described thefacilities that would be availablefor use at the ERA II Final TestEvent, scheduled for June 9-16,1977 in Richland, Washington. TheFinal Test Event was sponsored by theERDA-Richland Operations Office andsupported by numerous local indus-tries. Jon Anson, of the ERA IICoordinating Committee, listed theschedule of events for the weekof the Final Test Event, andanswered several questions about theevent.

Joe Eschbach, Chairman of the ERA IICoordinating Committee, gave detailson the scoring of projects. Themajor categories in the scoring wereinnovation, performance, economicsand marketability. In conjunction I

92

CHAPI El 2 8

:,

..Mis

P.\*:.22

.„.-»- „- ....U.-....*-

8» -lj ---

,"...- <:1%1/N i

40 - i A44\a -I -0. 1

1

e'l. 31200' 8214<4*iz 1.'llfillillillillillilill3\

b<Fil.69/W 1, -..

p«.„ - s,X '. · _ _-:r.4/:*Rel.:T Y# . , -

\:'<1 1 1 1 -'1' 11" I

· f /4,96. ™" . -.t .· ·, , - Sk ..\ i... :F· 40.6,-,6., ·

. ..19 , : 31'irli -.

U .» 1* :f. > 1 ..9 L 1:1.- » _- ' ' /

' I. 9/-6 », :%'. .14 44 - " 4 . f 6

The Educationallmpact

The primary purpose of the competitions for research while undergraduatessponsored by SCORE has been to promote, are not, SCORE tries to deliberatelystimulate, and support university en- gear its programs toward the under-gineering curricula. Student designed graduate. On the undergraduate level,and built projects offer a hands-on engineering curricula allow for theapproach to engineering education. greatest flexibility in the finalIt is through this project-oriented year. The largest percentage of ERAapproach that students are able to II participants was seniors, as showntackle problems which require a in Figure 1.systems solution.

Project competitions enable the student Figure 8.1- Year in Schoolengineer to test the application ofhis or her technical education.Hardware design and construction Freshmanchallenge the students to analyze acomplex problem, to determine the Sophomorevarious disciplines needed to solve the Junior Ill

.1problem, and to bring people in thesedisciplines together. Ultimately, Seniorteamwork is the key element in pro-viding solutions to the various pro- Gradblems which face the student engineer.SCORE's competitions generally prove 5 Yr.to be an interdisciplinary effort with 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100students from both engineering andnon-engineering backgrounds. The percentage of all students on ERA II teamsteams often include mechanical en- The ages of the ERA II Team Members ranged from 16-35

gineers, electrical engineers, chem-ical engineers, industrial engineers,as well as students from the socialsciences and management. The students Because SCORE competitions arelearn the relationship of their spe- strongly hardware oriented, the areacialty to the other fields represented that has traditionally provided theon the team, and are made aware of largest number of participants isthe total systems ramification of each mechanical engineering. However,decision. the interdisciplinary nature of the

projects often means the SCORE teamsSCORE conducts a questionnaire survey are composed of a variety of technicalfor each competition to help assess and non-technical students. Figurethe educational impact of each program. 2 shows the distribution of disci-For the Energy Resource Alternatives plines represented on the ERA II teams.II competition, questionnaires were The "other" category includes stu-completed by the team captains and dents majoring in computer science,the individual team members. Examples chem tech, physics, education, andof the questionnaire can be found at vocational rehabilitation.the end of this chapter.

Approximately 63% of the team captainsFigure 8.2- College Major

and 53% of the team members partici-pating in ERA II returned the ques-tionnaire. The results presented in Mech. Eng.the following categories are based onthese returns and represent the Elec. Eng.aggregate results for a projectedtotal of 250 students on 40 ERA II Civil Eng.teams from 32 universities acrossthe country. Chem Eng.

Architect.STUDENT INVOLVEMENT Other

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100SCORE competitions attract the parti-cipation of both undergraduate and percentage of all students on ERA II teamsgraduate engineering students. Sincegraduate engineering students areusually provided with opportunities

94

Since participation on a SCORE team is petition because of a desire forvoluntary, students decide on the experience in "hands-on" engineering.amount of time they spend working on Thirty-nine percent expressed antheir projects. When asked what interest in developing alternativepercentage of their total academic energy sources.time was devoted to ERA II, 20% saidthey were spending most of their time, Figure 8.5-

while 30% indicated they were spendingless than 20% of their time on the

Reason for Participating in ERA II

project. The average ERA II student'stime commitment to the competition was "Hands on"between 30-50%. experience

The majority of the ERA II studentsAcademic Credit

had grade point averages between A and .._C+ as shown in Figure 4. The majority Interestof students felt that ERA II had noreal effect on their grade point aver- Need a Jobage. (See Figure 3)

Other )

Figure 8.3- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

"How has ERAII affected your GPA?" percentage of all students on ERA II teams

HelpedFACULTY INVOLVEMENT

SCORE competitions are dependent ona high level of faculty involvement

Hurt for their successfulness. ERA II wasagain fortunate to have strong supportfrom its faculty participants. Thefaculty advisors worked closely with

No effect their teams, with over 82% meeting withtheir ERA II students on an informal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 basis. The advisors were of varied

percentage of all students on ERA II teams academic rank and came from severaldifferent departments, as shown byFigure 6.

Figure 8.4- Grade Point Average Figure 8.6- Faculty Advisor's Department

A Mech. Eng.

A- Civil Eng.B+ El e c. Eng. I.

B Chem. Eng. -B- Ind. Eng.C+ Other

C 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

C-percentage of ERA II faculty advisors

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SUPPORTpercentage of all students on ERA II teams

ERA II's competition had the strongsupport of the universities in-

Student response to the question "What volved. The value that the schools

is the main reason for your partici- placed on the program is reflectedpation in the ERA II competition?" is in Figure 7. Over 70% of the students

given in Figure 5. Approximately 45% involved were able to receive academic

of the students took part in the com- credit for the work on their projects.

95

Figure 8.7- Academic Credit Received The impact of ERA II on engineeringcurricula is more difficult to assessin the short period since the end ofthe program. However, it is apparentthat previous SCORE programs have beenYes instrumental in the introduction ofproject-oriented design and constructioncourses prior to ERA. Of the teamcaptains who answered a subsequentquestion as to why these courses were

No offered, 26% said they were started inresponse to previous SCORE competi-tions, i.e., the Clean Air Car Race,Urban Vehicle Design Competition, and0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Students Against Fires.

percentage of all students ort ERA II teams

In conclusion, the ERA II competitionagain appears to have fulfilled theTHE ERA II TEAMS educational goals established for itas a SCORE program. Having beenThe average ERA II team consisted of evaluated by statistics and the sub-5 students, 2 of whom were "hard core" jective analysis of its participants,members, devoting an average of 20 ERA II did have a significant impact on

hours per week to their project. Team the participating universities andsize was extremely variable for ERA II. their students.The smallest team had one member,the largest had 12 members. Theaverage team spent a total of 1,100hours on their project; 70% of thistime was on construction, 23% ondesign, 27% on publicity. Over 50%of the teams held regularly scheduledmeetings at least once per month.

CONCLUSIONS

The educational importance of a SCOREprogram is measured in its long termeffect on the student team members andon the engineering curricula of theparticipating colleges and universi-ties. SCORE competitions, based onthe results of the ERA II survey, dogive some indication of the advantagesof sponsoring such a program.

Over 85% of the students said thattheir personal motives for enteringwere satisfied. This is another in-dication of ERA II's success. Approx-imately 59% of the students felt theywere making a significant cohtributiontoward the solution of the nation'senergy problems.

A current issue in engineering edu-cation is the representation of womenand minority students in the field.In 1974, the Engineering ManpowerCommission revealed that the totalU.S. Engineering enrollments of womenand minorities were 4.9% and 5.9%respectively of all undergraduateand graduate engineering students.The statistics for ERA II teams showwomen minorities to be representedat 8% and 11% respectively.

96

Energy Resource Alternatives11 *ME

STUDENT PROFILE QUESTIONNAIREplease complete this questionnaire and return it to your team captain.

The data from this survey will be used in the composition of theaggregate profile of ERA II team members and the results will bepublished in the ERA II Final Report.

* Note: Team captains are asked to fill out this questionnaire aswell as the EDUCATIONAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE

Major1 Age 2 Sex 3

4 Classification as of January 1, 1977 (circle) F S J S 5 G

5 Do you consider yourselfAfro-americanAmerican IndianCaucasianOrientalSpanish surnameOther

6 Have you received academic credit for your work on ERA II?Yes No

7 Have you received wages for your work?Yes No

8 What are the main reasons for your participation in ERA II?(rank the three most important: circle 1,2 & 3)1 2 3 "hands-on" experience1 2 3 academic credit1 2 3 interest in the field1 2 3 need for a job1 2 3 other

9 Do you feel the motivation you ranked #1 was satisified throughyour experience?

Yes No If No, why?

10 Have you participated in a previous SCORE program?(if yes, circle the appropriate program)

ERA SAF UVDC

11 If the answer to # 10 was no, how did you become aware of ERA II?

97

Team Member Profile, page 2

12 If you assume time spent on normal schoolwork plus time spent onERA to be 100%, what percent of your time over the past term wasspent on ERA II? Approximately (circle)

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

13 During the school term, how many hours per week ( averaged overthe duration of the ERA II program) did you ipend on your project?

average hours. How many man-hours is this? total hours

14 Has your ERA II experience caused any change in your career goals?

Yes No If yes, what?

15 Do you feel you made a significant contribution to energy researchthrough your work on ERA II?

Yes No

16 If you were to be in school for the duration of another SCOREcompetition, would you enter?

Yes No Depends on the topic

17 What effect has working on your ERA II project had on your GPA?Helped Hurt No effect

18 What is your composite GPA? (circle)A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- P/F System: P F

Please feel free to make any other comments or constructivecriticism of SCORE or ERA II below:

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.I SINCERELY HOPE THAT YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PROGRAM HAS BEENA MEANINGFUL EXPERIENCE.

RICHARD ASELTINE

98

Energy Resource Alternatives11 3009/

EDUCATIONAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIREThis questionnaire is to be filled out by the team captain and submitted with I

the ERA II Student Profile Questionnaires.

** Note: ALL QUESTIONNAIRES ARE TO BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MAY 31, 1977.

Sponsored University's name Team #

Team Captain's name: Year (circle): F S J 4 5 G

Have you been the team captain since the beginning? For the duration of(circle) Yes No the past the ERA H

term program

1. How many team members did you/do you have that youconsider: hardcore

activeoccasionaltotal of above

2. How many hours did these respective groups averageworking? hardcore

activeoccasional

3. In your estimation, how many total hours were spentby the team on: design

fundraisingconstructionpublicityoverall total

4. How many times per month were regularily scheduledmeetings held?

5. Did you actively solicit funds from sources other

than your university and SCORE? (circle) Y N Y N

6. Did you conduct an organized publicity campaign? Y N Y N7. How many team members attended the symposium held

in Norman, OklahomaHouston, Texas

99

8. In what department was your ERA II project based?mechanical engineeringelectrical engineeringcivil engineeringchemical engineeringindustrial engineeringother - please specify

9. In what department was your faculty advisor?mechanical engineeringelectrical engineeringcivil engineeringchemical engineeringindustrial engineeringother - please specify

10. What is your faculty advisor's status?full professorassociate professorassistant professorother - please speci fy

11. How many times per month did your facul ty advisor meet withyour team on a: regularily scheduled basis

informal basis

12. How many times per month did your faculty advisor visit yourlab/test site

13. How many of your team members received academic credit fortheir work from a: standard classroom course

a lab coursea seminaran independent study coursea specially created courseother - please specify

14. Please list the monetary value of materials, supplies andservices or cash donations your team received from

SCORE $companies/corporations $foundations $private individuals $government agencies $other - please speci fy $

$

total $

15. Please indicate the form of support you received from yourdepartment/college and your estimate of the dollar value:

office space $lab space $equipment $materials $funds $

wages $computer time $secretarial support $other -please specify $

100

CHAPI EI 2 94 IHV/Z'%*51.i'ucf. 7:»=.3='.--3,1''..... =.-- . -f-1

E; Q.T.-,k -a.'5„--1, -'.«-,2..r.., . , .L· , - 22 .: -

#*40*wwi- : . .1 ;Aaffj. -. ... . ... -.I

. «'.: ti_.-<41 '•U .I. ..™8

24:41.1.:)=:3.. i.- 2 .. ,-tiz),S, 3, :, 1 fj .f ·· Ili", ' ·

P.. .../ 1R... 2 1.. ....: ./·.··•··',··.··

/ 3 9 \4 '..:21-,fil... *4/1 j El -,-1.I"ilf'lli

f 11

. -% 11™'4t.,1 11 .,/ :I : .1 11

h 4 114/44 ,

3 4 Ilt' , 1,« , IA 1," - 1. 3 " , -1 i ,

1.414 -.1 ,./ 1-

-:tr 'i a .11 .

f' 2.-f.·34- -64.

'. . "-544,..-'

. . · . - *tif'.i' . a..8/V* L.... ,/

1-- - -39" 44//4'

5- 2 .:62. 4 =ii . / 6., '4: 4 - =

-ti.'

*

'1.,ey-

A35.2,...:.». -24,.»-i. Ci ·:I', t.

4 J.... r S.

Media Coverage

SCORE's media effort had two goals: first, to obtainnational recognition for the efforts of the ERA II students;and second, to increase public awareness of the potentialrole of alternative energy sources in the solution of thenation's energy problem. It was emphasized that the ERA IIteams were developing small-scale alternative energy systemsto supply household electrical needs and that the technologyfor such systems had already been shown to be feasible. Itwas explained that ERA II was concentrating on innovative waysto make such systems lower in cost and more practical for thehomeowner or small businessman to install and use.

The media effort was based on press releases and personalcontacts with reporters from the national media. During thecourse of the competition, seven national releases were dis-tributed to the country's major newspapers, magazines, tech-nical journals, television, and radio networks, as well asforeign news services. A press release was also prepared foreach of the forty-three ERA II teams and sent to their school'snews o f f ice, local ,and state media, and the hometown newspaperof the team members.

Press representatives from SCORE visited national mediareporters in New York City to generate interest in the competi-tion and encourage the media to cover the Final Test Event inRichland, Washington. It soon became apparent that convincingreporters to make the trip to Richland was not going to be atrivial undertaking. Nevertheless, the resulting media cover-age of the ERA II Final Test Event was excellent.

The rest of this chapter contains a representativeselection of the national, regional, and local articles writ-ten on the competition.

In addition to this print coverage, the television net-works were well represented at the ERA II final testing heldat the Energy Research Development Administration regionaloperations office in Richland. NBC filmed a special reportwhich was distributed nationally through its News ProgramService to its 140 affiliate stations. Regional coverage inthe northwest was provided by the local television stations.

102

MACHINE DESIGN, July 21, 1977 Copyright 1977, Reprinted with Permission.

0:/atioma s vertica,1 ... '"75... -,0- G-· ·,C"axis find turb,ne ...I@A // .fill, Wk ... „„„t, .C'-prI -/ --

13 A"\ .......

- l 11 / "'r = 1'i wl/.I » .b .'Z - „--dle-- .1;/ 91. j L'.4* /W- B r

N - '4 //////41 4 /

.

*i -\IM-NIFTi .- ' -=Illillill-......& - . •-/... Fli ilin

- .41 Il 4 ..1IN/////VB , 'I . F,

4, -- - p./- AlI

, ' . ,[1./ 1,4B»..... J "'Wl'=A 4*J'

2 L *cvg./.=1bblk. kiw. t--- : .....1/ , > wp...../.*41/11" = *f-L L..

Tomorrow's Engineers solar and organic fuels divisionsThe solar team used a minicom-

Tackle Today's Energy Problems puter to focus a 15-panel collectorin a system that included a single-piston, double-acting steam en-gine. The biogas team used a mi-

Besides pursuing regular studies, sity of Texas-Austin for a collector croprocessor to control thescores of engineering students system in which 18 trough-like anerobic decay of organic wastehave spent two years trying to ex- parabolic mirrors focus solar radi- within a digestor. Gas productiontract electrical power from wind, ation on water-filled tubes to pro- is enhanced by recycling heat fromsunshine, and biological material. duce steam. the system's methane-burning en-The teams of future engineers Oklahoma's vertical-axis wind gine.converged on Richland, Wash., at turbine, mounted atop a four-story The energy hardware was de-mid-yearto test their prototype de- tower, won overall and innovation veloped under ERA 11, a 1976-77signs under the scrutiny of re- prizes in the wind category by sur- program sponsored by Studentsearchers and practicing engi- viving an afternoon of strong gusts Competitions for Relevant En-neers from industry, government, amidst a week of calm weather. gineering (SCORE), which isand academia. Teams from Georgia Tech won headquartered at M.I.T., Cam-

Winning designs in the week- first-place overall prizes in both bridge, Mass. GE

long competition have addednumerous wrinkles to thealternative-energy field. For 0

1,1.- :.'ts, · £'·%*:€··Rt - ·rato. r·· ' 1 4example, grain sorghum is the1 , , fis·e/ed ty sa'ght'm Cer··,eu' ethanol

primary fuel of the grand-prize-winning design, and variable-pitch ' 9 ..... .:.............. -

..Ye.,; 1,1blades are featured in a modified...F..:. ._CDarrieus wind turbine, the first

f 3 .5 : 4..: ..'... .: : -1. . . . . .- & . :SC.Fk», i.vtrunner-up design. A biogas -3 . .9 4 4... 4,tr.generator using waste material re-

4 44 6 -.- 1. - - .---- 1 .,2- .'.'' «'.:ceived the third-place overall

1. 1: ./....

award. 41... > 11. - *„ :4

Grand awards were won by stu- :.: .·8 :.211dent teams from Kansas State Uni- -' s . i:.. .i ,1:versity, University of Oklahoma, --«. .,=and West Virginia University, re- 4 vspectively. The top overall award ,.1 4... »...4for innovation went to the Univer-

5 Ie

103

Courtesy of SHELL NEWS, Shell Oil Company.

As contests go, = 7,

it was no breeze fwould score with the judges in aFor the second year, Energy icompetition called Energy ResourcesResource Alternatives was Alternatives 11.

the theme of the annual The object of this year's contest, onceSCORE competition for again supported financially by Shell, was .

., 4'»...» ... ...4 ....9 . 4

student engineers, but how do to produce electricity from any energy 9 'IC :. ' - - . - ., «source, other than oil or natural gas, to Swe .·:-, r . . · - .p : .. r ....you show what your windmill meet the needs of the home, farm or '7 - - . -"- .,, 9 -- . .- .- ...., ' .can do in a dead calm? light industry - "juice to keep the cows ' '( ' · = - . * I I ' f " away from the fence," is the way one -observer put it. This was a follow-up to i*f*last year's ERA 1, and once more the r . .:.. .4:t"f Efi,46;. ..si... .Story and photography by JAY STULLER entries featured wind-, solar- and ·. / :1:>7: . --1.L...'.combustion-powered contraptions that '54, 1 VZ:u'*4· ·3 Y.would warm the cockles of a hardware 53* 42

4... I . 3salesman's heart. Orajunkman's: There 4415 Z -- . ..„. , W.«.-,It was the kind of day that Don Quixote was even a special prizecalled the 1%12*4 ..1de la Mancha, the literary tilter at "grand innovation award."

Renaissance windmills, would have But don't scoff, even though the wind i'*,e: z.- . ..... 9 *.-4.appreciated. The sun was hot enough to machines drooped in the doldrums and 2-6 ', -IN' .-keep his aging muscles supple, but other devices looked as if

somebody had **hardly a whisper of a breeze stirred the wiped out the local supply of aluminum 5**JES :.. 1,4» -B..4-' -. -/collection of wind machines gathered on foil wrap. "What we've got here," said . · *pi:, fa plain in Richland, Washington, at the John Sununu, a Tufts University profes- .-$ .confluence of the Yakima and Columbia sor and chairman of SCORE's board ofRivers. And as everyone knows, it may directors, "are laboratory prototypesbe unsportsmanlike to tilt at motionless which generate engineering data. In fact,windmills, but it's certainly easier to what these kids are coming up with isScore a hit. about as good as you'd see in an

The pun is unintentional, but as long industry- or government-sponsoredas it's there let it serve to explain the project. And they do it cheaper andfacts: SCORE, an acronym for Student quicker, with a success rate about equal.

6 1/Competitions on Relevant Engineering, That says a lot about how good these.Ais a non-profit organization established kids really are."

-1' 3 ="=hin 1971 "to give students an opportunity "It'S really too bad the wind isn't .... 1to design and build equipment to blowing," said Bob Coit of Shell's En-address real-world engineering vironmental Affairs Department, who 6 ...=.1-dla/ Aproblems." Under the sponsorship of was serving on the advisory board for '35:i„Washington State University and on the ERA 11, "especially after the problems 4.- . 3grounds of Richland's Joint Center for ·some of the teams had getting their 4Graduate Studies, teams from 28

2'Z'Z:,tltZ,112 Iti- ..=.\colleges and one high school were '= .-1 »hoping their engineering creations School in upstate New York provided a ' -- Ul' 3 . 1

1 11&*.1

SHELL NEWS, Volume 45, No. 6, 1977

104

Left, top: Eight-foot parabolic trough mirrors , 1. & I -from the University of Texas. Bob Coit of Shell in

L.

helmet views Oklahoma wind turbine. Right:Grounds at

Richland looked like a carnival. - 3 ,- t 1

-

good example of what Coit was talking ...' 41. \about. The trailer carrying the group's r -Wis=,- 3windmill and parabolic dish solarcollec- f# 1 7,1 f ..11.

tor, an extremely fragile device, flippedon the cross-country trip, almost wreck-

f . 71." .4,

I

ing its cargo. It took a hard-sell pitch for \

funds by a New York radio station to getR . + 6. r Ithe team back on the trail. , £1 1

Sitting in the shade of a U-Haultrailer -5 / 1 2to escape the punishing sun, Coit con-

tinued: "But the point to remember is / 3 4,104. \that this affair isn't meant to be a big ». » ,competition. Winning isn't - orshouldn't be - the main consideration. ..j ;.=ry '34,< . &424-4 - 4,61It's more a part of the educationalprocess. Even the teams that don't win ./

'6.

an award don't really lose, because theylearn of the problems that exist in the / .'„gap between an idea 011 paper and -*- 16; . +-applied engineering, which is the ulti-

. ,1, 4 1 -emate aim of SCORE. One of the prob- # #lems the students have to handle, for ; 1example, is getting things done in time. 3They don't always complete everything iat home tn see if it works, so they have to fbring it here untested and try to get , 1 /it operating. That's why yi'01' bee 50 1

many of the devices broken."It did indeed seem as if the gremlins 4-

that attack so many scientific projects 5were having a field day. One gmtip, for ' example, was using glue to attach

solar .- Jreflectors lo blatids, and the glue ruined it' 7the mirrors. Elsewhere, rotor bladeswere falling like autumn leaves - and u.0with narya Don Quixote in sight.

The team from the University of Texas,Austin, had its share of attention fromthe littlp trniihIp-m.Irer. "What happenedZ" repeated grease-smearedsenior Clay Fulcher. "Simple - ourpump b,:kc." Tlie Lui,Klluit 1,5 bv|41 tOi-lection system consisted of 18 eight-foot *parabolic trough mirrors which focused 9 1the sun's rays on water-filled tubes to - : .., 11.1. 6/te-

'% t )11.produce steam, which iii lu„i diuve a t ..». 4 Ihirbine-generator to produce electricity. .AA s

1.

"If this pump had only worked," Fulcher -, -*#:said sadly, "this whole place would have r. 6--bccii lilled willl blealll."

105

"We spent 18 months in the design swimming pool, volleyball equipment, , - kt- --- -

phase and only two months building it," and a large tent, dubbed Club West, iadded Ahmad Sharif-Homayoun, team which for a week was the liveliest night l 1,1captain. "It's really not a commercially spot in Richland. Georgia Tech clearly 1 1feasible device, since we lose about 96 had arrived in town to win big in thispercent of our energy through the steam Rose Bowl of collegiate engineering. ; r \engines, which are only four percent "We came 2,900 miles," said outspo- 1 4.4 4efficient. But it would work - if it wasn't ken George Jones, senior and coor- ,forthat pump." dinator of Tech's four projects, "and i \

If you know how gremlins usually frankly, I'm disappointed. We came forcarry on, you've probably guessed that the competition, and we expected more ,-1

the Texans finally got the pump to schools to be represented here. I also \ working - at sunset. Still, the contrap- think we put a lot more effort into our..tion with its homemade pipes wrapped work than some other teams.

Min reams of aluminum foil was consid- More money, too. Handing over a #- 4ered ingenious enough by the judges to frosty Olympia beer, Jones pointed out

'... 1win the grand innovation award. that the Georgia group had raised / -One solar collector that did produce $22,000 to spend on its projects, and was

electricity was entered by Rensselaer using donated equipment worth $25,000 i. k.1-1Polytechnic Institute of Troy, New York. besides. Enthusiasm was high on the

The blue-and-white collector, which 9,000-student campus, he added, and a 4, •looked something like a Viking ship with weekly newsletter outlining the progress 'SAJan oddly fanned tail, tracked the sun of the GITSET (Georgia Institute of '13 -2,1across the sky as it produced 1.2 Technology Student Energy Team) was

7'f: rkilowatts of electricity photovoltaically. devoured by 150 subscribers. ** *Its major weakness seemed to be its Jones was happy with the showing ofneed for constant attention - broiling in his four teams - which included first - -,_-rthe sun, an underclassman (naturally) place finishes in the solar energy andwielded a mop to dust the plates. organic fuels divisions and a second in

44 1"The energy shortage was the obvious the solar innovation competition, not to -catalyst for projects such as this," said mention an unofficial standing-by-itself f - .3, 8,1-*,jeff Hersh, a senior physics major. "Even first in fund-raising, even though he felt ...'9

...

though there may be a lot going on in that some of the objectives of the +the area of alternative energy research, program were difficult to meet in the basic ideas such as this can lead to twists time allotted. "We're taking on projects Vwhich might result in unforeseen bene- that engineers in the United States have --r *fits. We don't know what they will be, been working on for 50 years," he said.but you can be sure we'll come up with "But I guess a lot of learning did go into 1something!" all this," he added, gesturing at the

Another entry that worked the way it Surrounding array of machinery. "Afterwas supposed to, Kansas State Univer- all, the people here are what you'd havesity's electricity-generating internal to call the All-Americans of the studentcombustion engine, won the grand engineering world."award. The innovative engine used as its Taking first place in the wind innova-only fuel ethanol produced by distilla- tion category and second overall was thetion of juices extracted from the stalks of University of Oklahoma's wind-powered *sorghum, an abundant crop in Kansas. turbine, one of the most sophisticated

By far the largest delegation of young pieces of hardware at the event. , 9 471„--4Wrights and Edisons was sent by the Mounted on a four-story-tall

tower, the ' ¥ 44 32 - iGeorgia Institute of Technology - four vertical axis articulated blade wind tur- )teams, consisting of 28 students, in two bine (in its short form, VAABWT, pro- - . itrucks and five cars. Proving that you can nounced sort of the way Elmer Fudd saysramble unwrecked across country with rabbit) uses a unique control system -most of the comforts of home, the Tech which constantly monitors the angle of 1 16engineers brought with them their own the vertical blades and holds them in

106

1• · . ··.. - · · - · · - ---' -7 Left: Rensselaer's solar collector. Right: Top,

< Berkeley student monitors electricity produced7 bya windmill. Middle: Aluminum foil manufac-

1 turers loved the competition. Bottom: Georgia SYST, 4 ..-

Tech students frolic in their swimming pool. 3 1' ..7 '- - their optimum performance position. It

didn't do well in the calm that hovered -...4 ... -: over Riclildrid, because it was designed

·. · - for the Great Plains or coastal areas,iphere the wind bluwb must of ille time.

"A steady 12-mph breeze would keep._- - it going," said Mikc Bcrgey, 01* ui ll:e

-- ' three-man team that traveled to the-- - S. 1 contest with his father, a professor at

r., . t-- . *00fl Oklahoma and faculty advisor. "At that G·Tv* \

rate, the system would last for about 35 .. ryears. But it can operate in winds up to.Pr..»L ./.-/--: ---' ' e-etedie:,8.* 80 mph, and survive a 150-mph storm if

4. _ -...#<M t .- iiint*.44r ,, .4.....6964 ' ': r"-•IZIZit j it's shut down quick enough. The system TJ;3·Th k

r=-='-'= '=T . 4"w-00-- =I I will provide only supplemental power, 1. , .,2. 1 8'1 1 ' 1 1.-Ili but it can be hooked directly into any 3-,p - -- 4„ .... ..". I - ..... .. existing set-up and feed juice into it as :.Jlf 4-*44

long as the wind keeps on blowing. Right.-.-now it could be profitably installed in

d - r-F-· East Coast areas where power rates are ' , -

»,· *31 -. high. We figure this unit will produce ....

energy for about six and a half cents perkilowatt hour, with an initial cost, includ-ing installation, of about $6,000."

El.'*/115*i'WIN/*11/Relaxing in the air-rnnrlitinned cool of 1,-

his team's camper, Bergey described · 'himself as more entrepreneur than sci-

=-1-1 -1,1--11,17'7; 1112«31'i 1 If - -A__ • ' room for both that and making a buck,too. That's why using economics and

-

I.L..--/F/.).---- marketability as part of the criteria is the 4-. best way to run a competition like this. If i-pi-*r-,SET*yj....-T117313 you set it up too loosely, you'd get _ -U$/#7*505,r#Fr 1U.brari-*."4'..<i,tikgdfieW>.i:**M mostly far-out things that would never

work. Economics runs the world, and ·.», -, ' -, _6 economics is spurring the alternative ,:

SA'EG*:USE***1' i*i ,*-;i,Pi,15£ 1 be worthwhile to build them, too."40-41f:Lf##6*iMjl on second thought, the Man from la

*f,z 86TVW.427..c- eastern Washington srene, no matter 0 r,•165< . .l·· r.#1121"*-flyzmp-- -.C./24&#1.9,%TfA/&3/602 how hot and windless the day. The only .:12.2. ,..'. »2. 62Qr5-+' - . =92/1/871191"*tj//IVA-.=,= -43-0&1,1,"211./I'Wly/"BIA 'Ol/igh. -7,ki'i:., interest the young people gathered here r. ..:'- .,91*0.U '8 ..Im

- 9 would have in tilting a windmill would be t>*,i:(S.L.06,-7. (4 1-** -- -iff#*.9/6*ria ri, tosee if itworkedbetterthatway. O ., .'.2--":'..'·3. i-* . . IP %14

107

Lincoln, Nebraska, SUNDAY JOURNAL AND STAR, July 3, 1977

Ethanol Made From SorghimiRICHLAND, Wash. (UPI) strainings and then used the week long competiton at the struction at this massive tested on their ability to use

- Kansas State University fuel to drive an internal 100 square mile Hanford government energy com- any energy other than oil orhas won the nationwide combustion engine which in Atomic Works near this pound. natural gas to produce power.Energy Resource Alter- turn drives an electrical central Washington com- The Energy Research andnatives II competifi6n with generator. munity. D e v e l o p m e n t A d- The testing came in fourits power producing turbine While it may not become The windmills and various ministration, which used to phases: innovation, per-fueled by extracts of the economical fuel of the energy producing con- be known as the Atomic formance, the economics of Isorghum, ' the state's abUIl- future for all mankind, traptions brought here from E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n, each idea and its

dant cereal crop. Kansans now have a new use throughout the nation by manages Hanford, where a · marketability.T h e K a n s a s S t a t e for their sorghum crop and tomorrow's scientists con- portion of the Manhattan plan

Engineering students, led by can save energy and money trasted sharply with the that ultimately created the Entries included solarteam captain Reginald in the process. sleek, multibillion dollar atomic bomb, was created ponds, solar cells, horizontalMoore, produced ethanol The Kansas State entry nuclear powered plants not many decades ago. axis windmills and a verticalf r o m s o r g h u m s t a l k outscored 28 other:$ in the operating or under con- Student engineers were axis darrius.

Buffalo, New York, COURIER EXPRESS, May 23, 1977

Soiar-Power ScholarsCompeting in BigLeague -...-.4. .-e--=-

By PATRICK J. RYAN trip west. Ronald DesRoche. a graduate nal/'*'llirf/4Courier·Express Staff Reporter student from Buffalo State College, andA high-powered group from West Seneca Jarnes Twist, an industrial arts student .11East Senior High School is preparing for atrip to the State of Washington. onhiero ' ,rge tida thetl'33,t;ltc

The group, a team that has been work- wiII drive the tank to the coast in aing on wind and solar power projects for donated rental truck. Adbpl'Le . - ·· 21 Ithe last year, is the only high school group

The eight students and Girke plan toinvited to a Student Competition on ReIe-leave on June 8 and return on June 17. lir.fijwvt , : .1. . ,vant Engineering (SCORE) being held in

Richland, Wash., in mid-June. .- ", - 4They hoDe to raise the $1,000 they need for *traveling expenses before then.And, as if that were not enough, they r,were ranked fifth in a field of 80, besting Financing Problem Occurs

all but four of the 79 engineering college The group has raised $7,000 to date andcompetitors on the basis of their watten believed that they had reached their goal 2 2 . ti , "i 94 Cbriefs. of $8,000. But one pledge of $1,000 from a mi .&*Rimit-#-/. . r ZJF4 '- tEl /5#WHS·Built Solar Collector local oil refinery "fell through" and the =in.¥ra#r.· #/01/f

Under the tutorship of teacher David group is looking for funds to replace that Mar N.Z.8.-,-' , - ..,. rep

Girke and several assistants, the eight amount.students have built an eight-foot diameter "But we're sgjl going Ito go even if we .4 41"6 3 1 ,solar collector that runs a steam engine, all have to come up with $50 of our own

: 4/ 0,216:,- - : . . . 915 " 1 ,<- 1and a wind turbine which they hope will money," OrzeI said. I :Ai" 7 RI· - _ - 4,4-·#-generate 2,000 watts in a 20 mile per hour The competition may involve a cash: I.- ... ..... /&

wind. prize for the winners, but the West Seneca 21 - livaigd..a -"We've had the equipment set up here group doesn't know. They are h a p p y

for tests," Dave Orzel, one of the students enough to be the only high school in the =..1 -- //a'::said. "There were a couple of bugs in the country to be invited to the affair. --, - ' ' 1*. · -wind turbine, and we had some calm days, Students involved ill the team besides --i-=ami + ..li./but everything seems to be working just as Orzell are Russell Fu]le, team captain, -/- 111*3we expected now." Steven Fachko, Ronald Fisher, JohnThe group began dismantling the Hornbuckle, Paul Barone, Lloyd Jones and &156:ieqdpment Saturday to pack it for the truck Mark Taylor = 045-9*eltriza'.ac

,/3. 3"2/5/Richland, Washington, TR/-C/T/ES

HERALD, June 9,1977 ;,•4* #*Il - 0

Reflections 0. 1.'-Paul Barone, left, and John Hornbuckle, students 4:0 *.Mp- A:20%.:'ne:·ean:it :Cio:.::5: S:to:let,ri '4 4 *ST#di 4* I „,p„ ,1 parabolic solar collector. The two are part of the 4 · .5 =' -=*"..diFifWi F-

only high school team in the final competition ' %- El v- -'- ' *+1, ..in,SE'test event in the S.C.O.R.E.

, (Student Com- - U I„ -

petitions on Relevant Engineering, Inc.) com- It- 99-,9-l /-.4 '.1 1" 1 petitions to be held this weekend throughWednesday at the north parking lot of HanfordSchool in Richland. (Herald photo by Lon Martin)

108

Ada, Oklahoma, NEWS, May 15, 1977

Four-Story 'Egg-Beater' WindmillTo Be Shown Monday At UniversityNORMAN, Okla. (AP) - A four-story provided by the Kerr Foundation of straight blades.

windmill which could produce energy for Oklahoma City. SCORE and the OU "It will be a very' efficient windmillhomes and industry will be unveiled Mon- college of engineering. because we've optimized its performanceday at the University of Oklahoma. "Numerous studies have estimated that to increase the energy conversion per-

The vertical axis windmill, which bears by the year 2000. as much as 15 per cent of formance," Bergey said. "It is moreno resemblence to the type which still ap- our total energy requirements could be sophisticated than the Darreius and it is uppears in rural areas, was designed and supplied by wind energy conversion to par with the state of the technology

built by OU engineering students. systems," pergey said. displayed in the horizontal axis.The result of more than a year of The OU windmill will be dedicated and

Energy researchers have been testinganalysis and 4,000 manhours of labor, the demonstrated in public ceremonies at 2both horizontal-axis. proDeller-type wind-

windmill is being installed for initial test- p.m. Monday at the engineering lab onmills and the vertical-axis type to seeing at OU's Aerospace, Mechanical and OU's north campus.which is most efficient.Nuclear Engineering lab.

School officials say its most stringent Bergey watched construction of a ver-test will come next month in a national tical-axis windmill, with blades whichcontest in Richland, Wash., called Student resembled a huge egg-beater, called theCompetitions on Relevant Engineering Darreius.(SCORE), June 9-16. "It was not a success, so I started"This windmill certainly has potential looking into the design," he said. "In thefor both homes and industry," said Karl beginning, it seemed there were someBergey. The professor is project coor- inherent problems. The curved blades leddinator and instructor in the special to inefficiencies." Orange, Texas, LEADER, June 17, 1977projects course that has been building thewindmill. After more than eight months analyzing

,31,;-,„;A OUdesregnriaoruartoe m&a 1

the design, he adapted it to feature three

Sorghum Powerthe college of engineering which con-structed the windmill.

Bergey also promoted the project, found Wins Contestthe money and convinced other students toenrol in the course.

The structure was built with funds RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) A wind turbine from the- Neither wind nor sun nor University of Oklahomaearthheated water propels team won second placethe grand award-winning overall and first place indesign for an alternative wind innovation.energy source in a recent Judging was done on power

Wichita Falls, Texas, RECORD NEWS, July 1, 1977 national contest. output, innovation andThe winning electricity economic practicality of the

Reception Honors MSU generator runs on sorghum. designs. Most were builtTwenty-eight college from the ground up by

teams and one from a finalists.Buffalo, N.Y., high school An eight-member

Solar Energy Team participated in the Student delegation from West SenecaCompetitions for Relevant East Senior High School ofEngineering (SCORE) Inc., . Buffalo claimed first place inwhich ended Thursday after the combined systems

By TOM OVERTON for their projects and did re- also contributed tothe team's ef- a one-week run. The top division.Staff Writer search more than four years. fort. Dr. Bob Harmel, dean of design came from The prep team, which

The six MSU students and their the School of Business Ad- engineering students at pooled the power output of aA reception Thursday honored faculty adviser, Dr. Ed Holver- ministration and Accounting, Kansas State University who solar reflector and a wind

the Student Competitions nn Re- son of the physics department, and Dr. Robert Clark o f the produced a combustion turbine, nearly didn't makelevant Engineering (SCORE) spent about $3,200. sociology department assisted turbine fueled by sorghum, a the SCORE meet.team of Midwestern State Uni- Ex-Students Associdtion, Re- in the project. cereal grass. It took a whirlwind

versity in Clark Student Center. gent Sherrill Burba of Olney, Team members include the of the Kansas State to raise $1,-500 for a secondLee McQueen, team leader fundraising drive in Buffalo

The team entered a Minto Tex., Russell Allmiller of Olney captain, Jeff Johnston of contingent, said the device turbine after the first waswheel. an energy-producing de- and Hal Yeager of Wichita Falls Wichita Falls, Ellen Janzen of uses ethanol from fermented wrecked in a freewayvice that uses solar power, in a made donations to the team. Isabella. Okla., Chris Malone of sorghum as fuel for an collision at Cleveland, Ohio.natibnal contest in Richland, Other persons and companies Wichita Falls. Morgan Moore of internal-combustion engine University of TexasWash. The entry won second that contributed include Syd Burkburnett and David Parker to drive an electric gen- claimed the overallplace in over-all solar Icompeti- Gaines of United Electric Co.. of Seymour, Tex. erator. innovation award, withtion and third place in solar in- Kaiser Aluminum, Jack Ham'- He said it was designed for University of Wisconsinnovation. competing against mond of Lone Star Tool, Bailey use in the Great Plains where getting the nod for innovationsome of the best-known en- Meissner and Ciba-Geigy irrigators use center-pivot in organic power

irrigation. applications.gineering departments in the. Other contributors include He said he envisioned a Georgia Tech swept solarUnited States. Midwestern State W alker-Neer Manu facturing farmer planting sorghum in and organic division titlesUniversity does not have an en- Co., Fresnel Optics of Roches- the far reaches of an and also was first in solargineering department. ler, N.Y., MSU maintenance de- Irrigation circle and using it innovation.

Helen Burt. a team member partment and Jeter Magneto to drive a generator for The University of Floridafrom Holliday, Tex., said some and Electric Co. Power. was first in the wind division.schools spent as muchas *0,000 Texas Electric Service Co.

109

Richland, Washington, TRI-CITIES HERALD, June 16, 1977

8 . ...-1,* -- I $

I ...

*S-*0 m I

i:,t

p ,„

4 * ,% 1..t

6 ..<-1

T.-

-f4 .12'.*19.0*.ell4.# I -*..,- A-.: A-I."".,2 ".7.#'b . ... .14*. 91 P4. e 2 ..

fr 2

eyr

1 11 6 * * , r-I + M

r.1 Ve.4 4 1* 1- 1 1 -11 - S 1 A

- 1'-3-

Lee McQueen's Kansas State University team petitions with a sorghum-fueled electric turbine.won first place in the energy alternatives com-

At Energy Alternative contest

Sorghum power tops windmillsBy TODD CROWELL electric generalor. second place in the combined mid clean the solar mirrorsHerald Stalf Writer According to team leader systems division. every day," he added.

Wind power has b e e n Lee McQueen, the device was West Seneca High School, Still Niemer is enthusiasticpraised as the wave of the designed for use in the plains Buffalo, N.Y., the only se- about his idea to recycle usedfuture, but it took a backseat of Kansas which, like the Mid- condary school in the com- helicopter blades for Iargeto sorghum at the fourth an- petition, won the first place wind turbines, which he saidColumbia region, make

extensive use of center-pivotnual national e n e r g y al- award in the c o m b i n e d might be practical in theternatives contest in Richland irrigation. systems division. Boardman area.this past week. McQueen said he envisioned Call you expect to see some Unfortunately, he didn't get

a farmer planting sorghum in of lhese alternative energy a chance to try lhem out. Tbed„;sn<,·i„ hl d;,teS ,ttl-r the far reaches of an ir-

devises in your backyard judges refused to let him

elaborate prototype wind tur- soon? Not likely, said several install them for safety rea-rigation circle, which don'tbines across the country for get much water.

and using it of the contestants. sons.

the competition sat i n to fuelhis electric power

frustration as nearly calm generator. Turning solar or w i n d One of the judges, John Fox

winds hardly budged a blade. These arguments ap- energy into heat and then into of Ballelle Norlhwest, said

And lhe brief gusts that did parently i m p r e s s e d the electrical current - most of the students came to

appur Saturday apparently judges, i,·ho made their especially t h e alternating realize from their "hands-on"

did little except knock down a decisions on the basis of current used in most experience, that a d o p t i n g

power output, innovation and households - is too complex, wind or solar energy to pro-Darrius wind turbine brought said Bob Niemer of Oregon duce electricity is still prettyeconomic practicality.here by the University of State University. remote.Alabama. Other top awards went to

Whether or not the Iack bf the University of Oklahoma 's "Your average p e r s o n "But they had fun trying,"wind turbine, which won se- doesn't want to have to go out lie said.

wind had anything to do withit, the grand award went not cond place in the overallto one of the eye-catching grand award. and t h e

wind turbines or elaborate University of Texas, wluch Energy contest winnerssolar engines but to a com- won first place in innovation

Grand Award: Kinsa, Slate sin (3}.

bustion turbine fueled bywith its parabolic solar col- University m, University o f Combined Systems Division: Westlectors. Oklahoma (2). be„Ha High School (1 ), Oregon State

Sorghum. Innovation: University of Texas. University (2), University of Wiscon-M (3).

The relatively simple device Wasllinglon State University ti,w.'50#GY: Mulqif,VY Un,$I,or., Storage Innovation: No award.

created by engineering siu. picked up two second place (2),Washington State University (3). Wind Innovation: University 4Solar Division (Georgia Institute of Oklahoma (l), University of Florida

dents at Kansas Stale awards in the organic and Technology (1 ), Midwestern Univer· (2). Washington State University {3).

sity (21, University of Wisconsin (]). Solar .Innovation: No first place,

University converts fermented organic innovation calegories, Solar Division( Georgia Institute of Georgia Institute of Technology <2),

sorghum into ethanol, which in third places in wind and wind Technology (1), Midwestern Univer- Midwestern University (3).sity (2}, University of Wisconsin (3). Organic Innovation: University of

turn is burned in an internal innovation divisions. Oregon Organic Division: Georgia Institute Wisconsin (1), Washington State

State University picked up a University (2), University of Wiscon- at Green Bay (3).of Technology (1), Washington State University (2}, University of Wisconsin

combustion engine to drive an110

Pawhuska, Oklahoma, JOURNAL-CAPITAL, May 15, 1977 Dayton, Ohio, DAYTON DAILY NEWS, July 3,1977

4-story u,indmill KS U team's sorghumat Norman; test turbine is topwinneras generator RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) - Neither He said he envisioned a farmer

wind nor sun nor earthheated water planting sorghum in the far reaches ofNORMAN, Okla. ( AP) - A funds provided by the Kerr propels the grand award-winning an irrigation circle and using it to

four-story windmill which could Foundauon of Oklahoma City,SCORE and the OU college of design for an alternative energy drive a generator for power.

produce energy for homes and source in a recent national contest. A wind turbine from the Universityindustry will be unveiled Mon- engineering. The winning electricity generator of Oklahoma team won second placeday at the University of Okla- Numerous studies have esti- runs on sorghum. over-all and first place in wind in-homa. mated that by the year 2000, as Twenty-eight college teams and one novation.

The vertical axis windmill, much as 15 per cent of our totalenergy requirements could be from a Buffalo, N.Y., high school Judging was done on power output,

which bears no resemblence tothe type which still appears in supplied by wind energy con. participated in the Student Com- innovation and economic practicality

version systems," Bergey said. petitions for Relevant Engineering of the designs. Most were built fromrural areas, was designed andbuilt by OU engineering stu- Energy researchers have (SCORE) Inc., which ended Thursday the ground up by finalists.

been testing both horizontal. after a one-week run. The top designdents.

axis, propeller-type windmills came from engineering students atThe result of more than a and the vertical-axis type to Kansas State University who

year of analysis and 4,000 man- see which is most efficient. produced a combustion turbine fueledhours of labor, the windmill is

Bergey watched construction by sorghum, a cereal grass.being installed for initial test- of a vertical.axis windmill, with Lee McQueen, team leader of theing at OU's Aerospace, Me- blades which resembled a huge Kansas State contingent, said thechanical and Nuclear Engineer-

egg·beater, called the Darreius. device uses ethanol from fermenteding lab. "It was not a success, so I sorghum as fuel for an internal-

School officials say its most started looking into the de- combustion engine to drive an electricstringent test will come next sign," he said. "In the begin generator.month in a national contest in ning, it seemed there were He said it was designed for use inRichland, Wash., called Student some inherent problems. The the Great Plains where irrigators useCompetitions on Relevant Engi- curved blades led to in- center-pivot irrigation.neering (SCORE), June 9-16. efficiencies." Richland, Washington, TR/-C/T/ES HERALD, June 9,1977"This windmill certainly has After more than eight monthspotential fx both homes and in- analyzing the desif, he adapt- Wind-turbine crash failsdusty," said Karl Bergey. The ed it to feature three straightprofessor is project coordinator blades.and instructor in the special "It wiM be a very efficientprojects course that has been windmm because we've opti- to halt Buffalo energy teambuilding the windmill. mized its performance to in-

Mike Bergey, OU senior from crease the energy conversion By JINI DALEN „*„„.*****lillI.***„*„** tricity-producing devise hereNorman, led a group of 12 un- performance," Bergey said. "It Herald Staff Writer National energy alternatives in a 24-foot U-Haul truck withdergraduate students in the col- is more sophisticated than the A not-very-funny t h i n g contest in Richland is open to a trailer behind. "It rodelege of engineering which con- Darreius and it is up to par happened to the kids from the public. Page 17. well. We changed driversstructed the windmill. with the state of the technology Buffalo, N.Y., on their way to every hour and a half and

Bergey also promoted the displayed in the horizontal aids. the national e n e r g y al- ,///***/********/**0/*****/**4 checked the apparatus eachproject, found the money and The OU windmill will be dedi- ternatives contest in . time."

convinced other students to en- cated and demonstrated in pub- Richland. of Buffalo graduate student

rol in the course. lic ceremonies at 2 p.m. Mon- Tlleir t r a i l e r overturned and advisor the group. accident that a number ofto They were loid after the

The structure was built with day at the engineering lab on outside Cleveland, O h i o, "The whole c o m m u n i t y tractor-trailers also hadOU's north campus. demolishing the wind turbine banded together to help." overturned at the same curve

that was an integral part of His team is one of 29 ac- in the road outside Cleveland.their solar-wind contest entry. cepted for the final test event

Looking on the bright side,They were out of money. In of the Energy Resource Al- Des Roches said it was for-

addition, the company that ternatives I I competitionmanufactured the wind tur- sponsored by S.C.O.R.E. tunate it wasn't the eight-foot

parabolic solar collector thatbine had gone out of business. (Student Competitions o n broke. "We'd have been done.

But a year of hard work by Relevant Engineering, Inc )the eight students from West When there were sti l 87 The students built that from

scratch. It's not somethingSeneca East Senior High proposals in the running, the

you can buy in a store."School - the only non- high school project ranked

collegiate group accepted for fifth, said Des Roches, despite All the teams will begin

the final tests - won't be in competition from such setting up their p r o j e c t svain. engineering powerhouses as Thursday, with performance

They went on tv in Buffalo M.I.T., Georgia Tech and testing Sunday, judging Mon-day and Tuesday and awards

a week ago, recited their other universities.plight and within a day raised "That r a n k i n g says presented next Wednesday.

the needed $1,500. something for the thought put There will be p u b l i c

Then the defunct turbine into this project," said Des openhouses Sunday and

manufacturer agreed to Roches. "We rah full perfor Wednesday.

locate a duplicate turbine. "If mance tests on it and thewe don't have one, we'll build results were excellent."one," he promised. It will take a lot of hard

It's expected to arrive by work, he said, to assemble theair freight today, in time for new turbine from a kit, "butproject set-up in the north Dave Gierke, the team's in·parking lot at Hanford School dustrial arts teacher, and Ion Thursday. still feel we'll be right up

"It was a godsend," said there in the competition."Ron Des Roches, University Des Roches drove the elee- 111

M San Francisco, California, SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, June 8, 1977»t\)

Group of UC students believes'1.,2 IN .. in giving power to the people

:,:, 3'a , *-, .,-

By Walter Barney a chain of batteries, or both. (The Propeller windmills have in-Science Writer flywheel can charge up to 5 kw in herent stability problems be-

half an hour. The batteries might cause the blades are mounted onWith scrap steel from a take 12 hours, but hold the a tall pole, with a heavy genera-junkyard, leftover pipe, plate charge longer.) tor also, necessarily, at the top offrom the side of a ship and otherscrounged materials, a few engi- The tire coupling with the the pole. The Cal windmill sits on

the ground, and the generator isneering students at UCBerkeley windmill (technically, a "wind mounted at the bottom.have built a novel windmill that turbine") runs efficiently, andgenerates enough electricity to replaces more complicated sys- The windmill is designed tosatisfy the average household. ·tems of belts, pulleys or gears. operate in the relatively light

winds - 10 to 15 m.p.h. - thatTheir creation is an entry in Prof. Otto Smith, adviser tothe SCORE (Student Competition the student group, calls the wind- prevail in the Bay Area. A tailon Relevant Energy) exhibition mill "the best in the world," vane that stabilizes the wheel atsupported by the Energy Re- because it's cheap, efficient and these velocities unhooks at high-search and Development Admin- sturdy. er speeds, so that the big wheel

istration June 9-16 at Richland, gradually turns edge-on to theThe Cal team, under student wind.Wash.

leader Rick Gavazza, spent sev-Thirty-five college teams The wheel itself could with-

have shipped hardware to Rich- stand 100 m.p.h. winds, Smithland, where it will be judged for says, but at these speeds it would

* 2 --76' 1 4 originality, performance, cost spin so fast that the generator

(4 4 2 1& meetings have been a yearly Their baby Within the accepted range ofand marketability. The SCORE would burn out.

1-' k 1. + fixture since the clean-air carwind velocities, the computerI /, L, 4» * .2 competition of five years ago. controls the speed at which the

#1 1 production Of electricity.

",5 *,236,- This year's theme is small scale entered in turbine is allowed to spin.

- * The Cal windmill is con- At Richland, the Cal wind-..1 0 trolled by a space-age microcom- nationwide mill will compete with solar

/. ..2.,4 5 : f 1,m puter, but its basic operation is

4 ..., '.... \. .. i .4 . ., - asimple.

generators, windmills of severaldesigns and "garbage digesters"

/ :.: ,i ; j :',.1 L . t,-a ...: ' 4.. competition - devices for producing electric-

/ F '113 11 f . . 9 . 3 i :ts., .1 ,/ The wind is caught by two ity by decomposing organic mate-

DW*:,tti -*4-- ':7 . . f.,0' 4

dozen twisted aluminum vanes of rial.

what looks like a huge bicycle The idea is to design a powerwheel, 20 feet in diameter. As the source for homes or farms.-=a-1'=-- 1 ( * 0./ 47 - 4*"2 wheel revolves, its rim turns an- =. eral thousand hours of work and "ERDA won't fund this kind of

./ ordinary four-ply nylon tire.work," Smith says, "so they askabout $2,200 for materials.the students to do it."

S-- ..„ I .-'-4 .. , 7 HA.liz The wheel is mounted on them

- - ...... E =, 1lk,4,/ same axle as an old five kilowattA commercial 10-kw version

- generator. The wind blows. the might cost $5,000, Smith esti- ERDA provides logistic sup-

=.......I-/...= ..... .-- - :..00A wheels turn and the electrons mates, plus another $5,000 to port for the competition. The-----„1.4----11- flow. install. In contrast, ERDA spent winners' rewards are prestige

nearly a million dbllars on a and satisfaction, rather thanBecause the wind is variable, three.bladed high-speed genera- cash. Successful designs, howev-

so is the output of the generator. tor that self-destructed due to er.,may be picked up by privateTo obtain a regular power supply, vibration in high winds last Feb- companies, which are providingoutput is stored in a flywheet, or ruary in Colorado. some judges for the event.

Examiner Photo by Bob Palmer

A windmill designed to provide sufficient energy for the average U.S. household

1- . 4

CE:r. 1*·Sn 1 1:. T 1. 1.

2 -1 I ,- i....1 ./ ...Al b--:AP.-p- .- 47*..... ..B -'... - 0\ 9 - .*.:... -.

401-'' -Fl it ' t. t.2-» Ii'*,ii: 1 -9 4,

-4-

. I ...„.=4 -

• ... -:T /-- B. I r. rb--- ---/- . ..'[4 f-: (»5.-'A. I, i 2/- -' IFI. *il 9 1....P *-.. . ... 1-- ' 1

'. t- . -1 ;1' - - - -3: 2 I.1 4&(5$15:2*/- 4/''j F. .1..-1- 11' '. . .....<.: ..i.i*/// I . .S'.Ir: .... - ..1 J -I..-5,-, .*..

. - , - S .. 3,4 . I..

I :'.- - I-' 1 . :.* 9 <00: I.EFIFF d ..., J.'. . i'

10*+- - 1

-:.: Ii//1/ I r., :3I- '1116. 1 t..1 *

i.. ..- «· . .''c,4 1 <6,& _ 1-6 ·:. * . -m i P' A/0-*,22: -:- .

'St e &e.4 - 1 .. . i f..T . . 32.-1.. t, QEEEMEEE. .11-mi-lill'lliz'Ze - 1

1.1

- 1.

.:

%.-, .91 i . 5 - • i The Rutgers University entry in the S.C.O.R.E.

p competition leonied high on its 30.foot pole, left.C . Members of the West Seneca High School team

' ' from Buffalo, N.Y., placed a 12-foot diameter spok-„80../6- I,r ' ed wind turbine wheel on temporary stands prior to

I installation, above../Illi. . I. .fi:i..- :t 11: 2

t--' / --, AL) 4 " ._ •_ · , . 4 Richland, Washington, TRI-CITIES HERALD, June 12, 1977

Students vie for energy alternativesBy JINI DALEN trying lo beg or borrow a Goldberg World in the North practical enough for the steam to drive an 18805 steam sity of Oklahoma at Norman

Herald Staff Writer vital pai·t that jusl broke parking lot of Hanford School homeowner or s m a l l bu- engine. believes the selling point of

apart. from Iloon until 5 P.m. this team's wind machine isThe scene at E n ergytoday and from 9 a.m. to 4

sinessman to install and use.Why such an anlique? jls efficiency.Resource Alternatives II in The fourth annual p.iii on Wednesday. Most contestants have been "It was given to us," ex- A modified verlical-axjsRichland bears a close re- S.C.O.R.E. (S t u d e n t Com-

semblance lo the hydroplane petitions on Relevant To get there, turn off Darrius wind turbine is set onworking on their projects for plained teammate Bob Gaar.

pits just before the Water Engineering) 8 a carnival of George Washington Way at more than a year. "The most difficult part was a 24-foot lower. "It turns likeFollies race: windmills. sojar collectors, Sprout Road, heading toward "lt's a fantastic way of scrounge - then design the

finding what pieces we could crazy," said Frazier.towers, mirrors and all sorts the Joint Center for Graduate seeing what everybody else is project around them." The windmill blades have0 Intense, dirty- of mechanical contraptions to Study. (You'd need an all- doing." said Craig McGahey, The crew from the Univer- flaps which raise and lowerfingernailed mechanics create electrical power in terrain vehicle to wind vour member of one of four teams sity of Texas at Austin was a as they rotate - similar towhanging on cranky equip- unusual ways. way along the route around here from Georgia Tech in bit moi·e fortunate. "The those on airplane wings -ment and muttering oaths to

the hot sun -when it refuses to Each project is ac-the school.) Atlanta. steam engine that spins our giving optimum performance.

start. companied by a team of hard- Goal of the contest is to They traveled the 3,000generator and turns it into But today will be the big0 Lampson cranes hover- hatted y o u n g engineering give engineeringstudents miles in a convoy of five carsdirect current electricity is an test. All the devices will be

1ng huge apparatuses students. eager to explain 1890 model," reported Jim judged on their electricity-"hands -on" experience i n and two 20-foot trucks.1-1 overhead and gently setting why what thby're doing is Lappresti on this team's solar producing performance over aW lhem in place. superior to everyone else's. developing innovative small- In McGaheys project, solar project. 24-hour period. Winners will

•Frandc scroungers The oublic can visit Rube s c a l e electricity-produi:ers, energy is used to create Jim Frazier of the Univer- be announced Wednesday.

Richland, Washington, TRI-CITIES HERALD, June 12,1977

S .....Ill--I'll-. -.-. 10-. I'.-p', : --, '. I . · t:- - - , 7 -- • ' . . L

4.- 110 . - - e.4% 1 11 1 -- 1-* .-,- *--- '' '-

F. p ' ,*.- 5 'B, i

\-1 It - fl.

I'lli·.i,'_ I.ic- 2:\ 1':. -'+11 - i )----+0 -I'*I t , '- -. 5. 4 \\S€s..........:. -91:..4 -·- 4--1. '; f i ·itl...... 1 1 \\.* 4- ....... 4,/ ...:414- 1 4.1

2 1 -·i., ·2, . ·t:. - --· ... ·, ..,, *. -:- 2 -

3 1t

4 : F:16217 1 : 1 -·*'44,- 6'. t

- 34 *f. 6 . i . ' .... 1- *4* '' 14. S- - I ./9-4 :t i +

-3-1 4 5 - 16» 1I 4 1.1 + A1-8 - .%\. I.

. :- - < .'- 12

... .* -. ... 2

-11» . 1 -.41. 11 1.,, \£,- - i ,:1:LL,& : . /... \.„ -

. „- '.7 \ ..2.*Ki i I:.- 1. :-2. . - - .· - 2p.ek.,21,. . \4 -.-3-«: /4 - -1 , , *'1 --

1 1 1 -1.1

IT.\ . . . - - . 4/

1,-1,- -* .. * -. .,2-../ 12 ... f. .'1.- : . t. . ...: . ..916=

r

: I / 6.- 11)1 ,1.'

1 . \ 44-0 /,

-

., 6 511T * A *e .0 1,1 -. C

-I . filt ill- . - 'll- - .' I/

W .: 'Ad/7111,1- , I1'.2 2.«8& ' w 55..1.11.-:G# --- -.- -»'... --- - .-- . -4144/ i

,; ...EL .4.41 - I. .F 2\ -' . ' .- I I i -4i*it

L 42.A 1/ZE4** ta.%, fi, AWiley Holcombe, left and Joliti collectors. Holli ore "·itil the

This 20.foot dianieter spoked wilid- 'i·it/(I. Thr hiX-111811 teit Iii [1·011 1)urbetaki worked oil their 18811 (:eorlliii In.tillitr of Tct'hnology1·heel is the University (If C:tlifu 1 - Berl.elev hits to true tlie wheel ste:1111 ellgilie i,hich is pojiered 11, team.nia's entry. :f·itit a 11 11\;cr oilli)lit (,f much like >o,i ·oultl a bic·yele ·hrel ,.trali) Renerated fi·<Ini t\,·i, Milar1.3 kilowatiA in a 13 tiille·,in-li,iiir iii <,i·cler iii I:ret) it h·0111 1, arpin-.

A---------

Wichita Falls, Texas, THE EXPONENT, December 5, 1976

Windmill? MSU couldn't get it up[Editor: rote: While Intercollegiall sponsor intercollegiate destructing in high winds. A NO. 22 CLEMSON sized system designed fecompeti tion 81 M SU unually refers to a thletic design-hardware fabrication built-In featuring device UNIVERSITY rural areas and small farms.events th, lerm has taken on a wider

meaning for 48 otter colleg. which fcok competitions. The SCORE renders the blades inoperative (Students: Bert Cornelius,pan In the SCORE co?rn/tition described concept grew from the at critical wind velocities and MODIFIED SEPTIC TANK TO Mike McHahan and Dougbelow. MSU was not represited In lastyeir·i Energy Resource Alernalves success of the 1970 Clean Air an automatic sensor un- PRODUCE ELECTRICITY Seller Advisor: Dr. Parviz R.competiton or any of 'he pr-lous lorri Car Race and the need for a couples the electrical systemPetitions.) Rad)

project-oriented approach to from the rotor to guard Clemson students areEvents of the last two years engineering education. against the generator being taking a farm's most plentifulhave demonstrated that During its first three years, burned out. resource, cow manure, and NO. 33 RENSSELAERcontinued dependence on over 3,200 student engineers The windmill is attached to converting the waste into a POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTEpetroleum and natural gas as from 80 different colleges and a D.C. generator whose power valuable fuel.the world's principal energy universities participated in is stored in batteries. In a large anaerobic dlgester SOLAR POWERED STEAMresource is a luxury we can no two national SCORE com- Through an Inverter, the (a modified septic tank), a ENGINE TO PROVIDE HOMElonger afford. Production petitions. The first was in the stored energy Is converted to bacterlal process will change NEEDS

the waste into methane gas The Rensselaer team hasThe gas is piped into anIntermediate expanding tank vaporize water via a flash

built a system designed to1, .- , and then burned In a smallI.-,i." boiler situated at the focus-- internal combustion engine.

... 1 4 The engine will turn a D.C. point of a concentrating solar collector.r 2- generator, which will produce The steam is used to drive aT, electricity to be storedin 12 Rankine cycle turbine thatvolt car batteries.

.. ,./ \ The stored energy is then rovide electricity for both tile

powers an A.C. gel'erator toconverted to 1 1 0 volt alter-nating current and

household and the system.After the steam leaves thetransmitted to the house turbine. it condenses and is. through cables.passed through heat ex-The digester's optimum

. 3 28 temperature of 95 degrees space heating. When suf-Fahrenheit is maintained withchangers for hot water andrk/ the aid of two solar collectorficient heat has been suppliedto the household, the excesspanels that heat the tank.

1 cA,t';::Idnut,Il,the ste eoa pihse, .jected Into the at.During hot months, a

compressor attached to the

4 . < called siurl.

This excellent steam turbine changes water

diluted organic material

fertilizer is removed from the to ice. Air, circulated aroundtank periodically and used to the ice, produces cool airthat

. / E anterr eadn r thle is blown through air ducts inthe house for central airconditioning.

SOLAR FOCUSSING COLLECTOR-The student team from the University of Alabama In !itcan replenish the nutrients The project js alsoin worn out soil much quickerHuntsvilll placed first In the focussIng collector division of the alternative enigy compelltion equipped with a back-uothan plain manure.

sponsored by SCORE last August. ISII story forteam 38] system to provide steam toThe potential dangers of the the turbine when minimalmethane gas, explosionslimitations and political 1971-1972 Urban Vehicle alternating current for caused by exposure to air andsolar energy is available. Aninsulated salt storageinteraction combined to Deisgn Competition (UVpC) household use. Bystoring the careless sparks, are avoidedseverely limit the availability and the second was the 1973- energy in batteries, the A.C. by keeping the gas in an chamber, surrounding theflash boiler, absorbs anyof petroleum products. Long 74 Students Against Fires output remains· constant, airtight enclosure. Because it excess heat from the waterlines at gasoline stations, the (SAF) competition. despite erratic wind volocities remains contained, the vaporization cycle. Eventuallyspectre of cold homes, and Last summer powering the D.C. generator. methane gas Is as safe as the the salt absorbs enough heatsignificantly higher fuel ERA challenged its par- (Group leaders: Stephen gasoline in an automobile to liquefy. Because of theprices brought the message ticipants to develop the Rumancik, Met Buss and tank.insulation, it remains in thishome to the public: the hardware which, can help Robert Mcfarland Advisor: Clemson students haveearth's petroleum reserves are Supply our energy Professor R. H. Edgerton) built their project as a full-liquified state and can be

being quickly depleted and a requirements from non- (Continued 10 Page 7

concerted effort must now be petroleum sources.made to develop the The following are sometechnology for the utilization examples of the projects rof allernatieve energy developed by the 68 teamsresources. which entered the com-

petition: JStudent Competitions on -Relevant Enoineerino(SCORE) announced on May4, 1974 that its next program NO. 20; UNIVERSITY OFwould deal with the energy OAKLANDproblem. The Energy „Resource Alternatives (ERA) THE FLAPPER" IS A SEL F-competition was organized by STARTING WINDMILLSCORE to challenge thenation's top enginering Oakland students have

I.college students to develop built a three-bladed windmill,innovative energy conversion nicknamed "The Flapper". 1 4and power generating The sail-like blades rotate on

systems for homes and light a vertical axis and can operateindustry using solar. sy,i- under winds coming from any Pifir 7 *thetic gas, wind, and other direction without changingnon-conventional energy orientation. 1sources. Teams of un- Since only three blades aredergraaduate and graduate used. the power output of th, »t».

I.

engineering students entering system is increased becausethe competition had a ynar to resistance is minimized.design and build their (Also, three baldes are the -»- 7iprojects in time for the Final minimum number necessary *ATest Event held in August, to still make the windmill1975. ' self-starting.) lil -SCORE was established in The team project includes ..''.....M1971 by the academic several safety controls to SELF STARTING WIND MILL--Oakland University students used a computer to effeclentlyengineering community to prevent the system from self- allocate output from solar and wind energy sources. [See story for team 20.1

115

Elsewhere students develop alternative energy(Continued from PIg. 6) coal into the furnace as the oil back and enjoys the heat in have programmed a central of natural gas. Or It Is burned

used to vaporlze the water supply shuts off. When the Comfort. computer to collect data on under water for hot waterwhen the flash boiler thermostst indicates suf- each component, compare heating.

possesses Insufficient heat. ficient heat has been sup- (Team captain: Ken Kriesel the energy status of the (Team captain: Ben FosterPhoto-electric sensors plled, the coal feed shuts off Advisor: Professor A. Seireg) storage system against the Advisor: Dr. H. R. Zapp)

home needs and then allocateenergy as required. The NO. 36 UNIVERSITY OF. - computer is programmed with ALABAMA AT HUNTSVILLE

111Theating holds precedent over SOLAR ENERGY TOcertain priorities: space

all other home Meds. PRODUCE ELECTRICTYSix different solar panels Using parabolic solar

are monitored by the com- collectors that track the sun,puter thatcontrols t.ie flow of Alabam students have built awater to and from the system that genera+escollectors. The water heated e lectricity for homc use.by collectors is routed a few Water, piped through theways: The hot water can be collectors, absorbs heat andchannelled to hot water returits to a large thermalslorage where it is used for

storage tank. Liquid freon Isdomestic hot water or hotpiped through a heat ex-water heating. Or the hot changer in the hot water tankwater can be piped through an where heat from the water Is

24* Insulated stearic acid transferred to the freon until itchamber, where stearic acid

vaporizes.crystals abosrb heat from the The vaporized freon drives awater through heat ex-

A+At changers and liquefy. In thissteam engine whichruns an A.C. generator. TheliquefiAd state, the stearic electricity generated is cabledacid can transfer heat back to ,. into the home for domesticthe water when there is not

enough energy in the solaruse. The vaporized freon

». KOREpanels.

condenses after passingthrough the turbine and Is

AUTOMATIC COAL BURNING HOME FURNANCE WITH EMMISSION CONTROLS--University The windmill can be at-pumped back through the hot

of Wisconsin students placed first in the coal utilization category. [See story for team 34] tadhed to a generator whose water tank to be re-vaporized.energy is stored in batteriesOr the windmill can be ati In order to conserve the

perpetually signal an electric and the oil burner turns on NO. 35 MICHIGAN STATE tached to resistor heatingstored energy In the hot water

motor to angle the mirrors or again for about 20 seconds. UNIVERSITY tank, the pumps circulatecolls to heat the water In thethe roof of the house to focus This prevents the formation of freon only when there Is a callproperly on the collectors, soot, caused by the in- COMPUTER ALLOCATES

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS IZCrstant e T n 1 utter for electricity.

which maxlmizes solar ab- complete combustion of coal On days with little solarFOR THE HOME decide which output would

sorption. remaining after the shut off energy available, the in-(Team captain: William signal. After the oil burner When there are several best serve the needs of the

sulated hot water tank

Rogers Advisor: Professor F shuts off, the scrubbers also solar panels and a windmill home at that time.Also under the computer's

contains enough energy toJ. Bordt cease working. all producing energy at once, operate the system ef-control is a hydrogen

The individual is not you need a computer to figure ficiently.

plagued by dirt, ash residue out how to allocate all the storageunit where hydrogen(Team captain: John Fuldais used in cooking insteadNO. 34 UNIVERSITY OF or the need to manually stoke output efficiently. Advisor: Professor Wallace)

WISCONSIN AT MADISON the furnace. He merely sits So Michigan State studentsMODIFIED OIL FURNACE TOBURN POWDERED COALCONVENIENTLY

Madison students areconverting a residential oilfurnace to burn pulverizedCoal conveniently and aut-omatically.

The problems with today's *A-coal furnaooo are that thoy arodirty, have to be manually :*k.\stoked and leave an ashresidue that must be -' ··collected and disposed of. -.C

This team has built a coalburning unit with scrubbersto clean the exhaust and »4automatic feeding controls r )that dispense with these difficulties. 1

The unit supplements theoil furnace, being easily ./ i .retrofltted into the heatingunit. A special container, r.- 2

which the team has designed,can be delivered by the fuel ../supplier in the same manner

--as oil is delivered. Another I....r".*specially designed containerholds all the residue from thefurnace and can be removed "- ,by the supplier upon eachdelivery of more coal.

When the thermostat sends./a signal to the furnace that

heat is need, the oil burnerand scrubbers begin to

. 46:operate simultaneously. After6: . -about 40 seconds, the furnace

IS hot enough to support coal DARRIUS ROTOR - Michigan State University students usedcombustion. At this time an a computer to efficiently allocate output from solar and windauger automatically feeds energy sources . ISee story for team 351.

116

Back to energy basics scientificallyBy Marcia Terry

The phrase, "Gentlemen, start your engines," Marc Schlosser set to work developing his own roll-could take on an entirely new meaning following the sock seals to fit the device. The project was substan-1977 SCORE final test event held June 9-15 in Rich- tial enough that he submitted the design for credit inland, Washington. SCORE, or Student Competitions an undergraduate research course. The other teamon Relevant Engineering, is sponsoring ERA II, the members also received course credit for their part insecond Energy Resource Alternative competition. the project. Stacy and Dobrowolski earned their

The object of the nationwide contest is to de- credit for working out the design computations.velop an engine that does not depend on fossil fuel Clearly, the emphasis of SCORE is on this kind ofand that can be used as a source of electricity for innovation, encouraging students to make use of anyhomes, farms, and light industry. materials and ideas that might solve specific engi-

A group of UW engineering undergraduates had neering objectives.hoped to see their modified Rankine engine competeiii the filial lating, hut thr group's prototype still hacnot been built.

Mechanical engineering seniors Eric Stacy, MarGSchlosser, and Scott Dobrowolski were working at adisadvantage in thp R.R A 11 cnmpatition, as tbey onlylearned about tho two year program 8 y-1 HAR |l

liall started. As of now, only a few parts nf theirmar.hinf have Hi.lutilly been manufactured.

Oddly, the group is undaunted by the fact that it '...

might not win. SCORE has already accomplishedwhat it $vt out to do it has stimulated the interp.st of

these engineering students into thinkingabout the engines that will have to be designed for the future.

Mechanical Engineering Professof John Bodoia,the group's faculty advisor, insists that the enginewill be finished and built, whether it can be enteredin the contest or not, simply because the project hasproved so valuable a learning experience for thepenplp invnlvmd.

The engine that the team has developed willlook like an old radial airplane engine laid on itsback, except that the internal combustion pistons

*IP..will be replaced by piston-cylinder units containingfreon gas. Freon. the conlant used in ordinary refrig-erators, was chosell because il is itio*volloivo; nontoxic, and Its Vapor pl'H.+Mile dl luw li,tiip:ratures issufficient to allow for efficiency loss due to friction.

The engine. which will measure five feet acrossand weigh between Ann and 500 pounds. might bedescribed thermodynamically as a closed-systemRankine cycle. Il will consist of four heat-cxchanger-cylinder sets connected to a fixed pin that is situatedoff-center to provide displacement for the pistons.

it operates by ruiallilg udill lieal:.changer unitcontaining freon first past a stream of lieated air ex-iting from a hiph-temperature reservoir Isolar-heatedrocks at about 180° F). Then the units complete thecycle by rotating through a low-temperature reser- OKEYvoir (ordinary air at about 70°F). The freon is caused rp,-alternately to boil and condense inside the pistons. R ;The machine takes advantage of the fact that the '..f . 2

vapor pressure of freon at 160°F (130 psi) is greater From mold tothan its vapor pressure at 100°F (80 psi) when it finished seal incondenses. The work done during the expansionprocess exceeds the work required to recompress the several not-too-gas, and results in a net work output.

The work output is low (less than one horse- easy steps. If youpower) and the efficiency is low (6% ), but the fact can't buy the partthat the engine makes use of otherwise wasted heatto generate electricity is important. The blow-by you need, youheated air can even be used for space-heating inhomes. make it.

In putting together their ideas for the machine,the students encountered some typical design prob-lems. The biggest problem was that the seal for theheat-exchanger unit had to be absolutely leak-free toprevent pollution and efficiency loss. No seals werecommercially available that would fit the design, so

117

1112' ., , J ..3:A' . 1 1&.

CH»I El 2 10-- .-- . -'..!" .....-- ..17..t:,. '.'.'. - r.-'. . -,--' «„„ -...,8 -4-0

..11 ..... .4 - .... .., i (r,r '.1. £1«)'.'(*1

i 4 4. .,M ' *RES·:i·· A.EQA 10-·,t'·3%,9224&411

1 - ... . ' S :36....113'. . (92. it. i.:· .","CL#T':.51*..4P......':1.'. '. / 1 -= -'#4'.' 51;L__ . =.

031 % *26&*1.(RE,RN/:W'kij,jwikmrtizirglaigajaiwi,/k. 44 3=*. fr9K,iff'.trFE'-lip.r*I,'„IW' .

.... I. ,, in IT ' '" ,'i:.1.1,82:*i.i =3......". 4..p,4 . ' ,%,iM .. a.,2. ar .

1 *:.'d , 1, 41· 'I: P · -. r./111· .,R,·,. 1 '*'111 .1'0:#aft///·44'f&/4 i: 4Hjqpf

Lt.1 'e 4. 1 '.1.J'. .7.... ..... rl .:... .4A F.< : '51< Vi ' ,':' F;.b,:Lip j:*, <' ,7 »e»'.: ,Z 1'Bb'l,

·= . 2-' ' ..,· - -- .., I. -..,1 -.' - :-- -4.7.- ,z..2 .-21 .31 14 5:p...ki-.#=9 ,

1. t/- ' ' . I . i. . ' .·..'S.. 5-*. 2323 ....:.5, · s..0"." i # . · '0*

3 1 e

V t.*

3

I

1 i

... 1 .1/..i -./-67

5/// f,19*,'I.*Pi

'· = ·„ 34'" '' ., .F R\ ,.6 3

7, - lit / / '*14·1·· · . - · H ·47 1, . -

1.

41...&: -

...t .... J .) f" r.9 12% . r f " _ *-'*4'21// . :*.1*'

39 2 \

Rt:X.;A ....

« , a..., I'..«t .ri . 1 i i'.... ... *LECE.

Finances

ERA II Coordinating Committee

Competition Budget

November 1975 to July 1977

I. Office Expenses

Contributors: WashingtonState

SCORE, Inc. University

Typing Services $11,450.00

Office Supplies $1,781.06

Photocopying 610.87

Printing and Mailing 4,908.02

Coordinating Committee Salaries 11,418.20 10,823.30(8,000 man hours)

Telephone 3,929.42

Subtotal: 21,475.38 $22,273.30

Total: $32, 298.68

II. Coordinating Committee Travel

Contributors: SCORE, Inc.February 1976: Meeting at SCORE, Inc.

Boston, MA andFirst Advisory Board Meeting, Washington, DC(5 people, travel, one week food and lodging) $3,046.44

March 1976: First Symposium at University ofOklahoma

(6 people, travel, 3 days food and lodging) 1,892.52

October 1976: Second Advisory Board Meeting,Washington, DC

(6 people, travel, 3 days food and lodging) 3,076.60

January 1977: Second Symposium at Universityof Houston (Houston, TX)

(6 people, travel, 3 days food·and lodging) 1,928.83

Spring 1977: Assorted travel to Final TestEvent Site (Richland, WA) 638.96

Total: $10,583.35

119

III. Travel of Others

Contributors: SCORE, Inc.

Five Speakers at First Symposium $1,310.86

Seven Speakers at Second Symposium 1,347.17

Total: $2,658.03

IV. First SymposiumUniversity of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

Contributors: Universityof

SCORE, Inc. Oklahoma

Food and Lodging $4,000.00 $4,000.00(150 people, 3 days)

Subtotal: 4,000.00 $4,000.00

Total: $8,000.00

V. Second SymposiumUniversity of Houston, Houston, TX

Contributors: Universityof

SCORE, Inc. Houston

Food and Lodging $5,000.00 $2,000.00(150 people, 3 days)

Subtotal: 5,000.00 $2,000.00

Total: $7,000.00

VI. Final Test Event ExpensesRichland, WA June 9-16, 1977

Contributors: City of LocalSCORE, Inc. Richland Industry

Food $3,536.85 $3,500.00Judges' Travel 2,228.10Judges' Food and Lodging 1,016.21Telephone, Printing, Photocopying, etc. 1,000.00

Awards 2,035.20

Coordinating Committee Travel 443.88

Coordinating Committee Food and Lodging 2,490.17

Site Preparation $3,000.00

Subtotal: 12,750.41 $3,000.00 $3,500.00

Total: $19,250.41

VII. Team Support Contributors: SCORE, Inc.

From three team grants $83,000.00

Total: $83,000.00

VIII. Summary Expenses

SCORE, Inc.: $150,290.00

Washington State University: 22,273.00

Others: 19,000.00

GRAND TOTAL: $191,563.0Q

120

1 .2 4 /0..1 i' =AI »" 5

0, 2 ·-\ .F . 1> .r» f ./7, -- .-A . f- M

11 *-- 1 1 p -- g - :i-

6 * 48 ,.ift.v't -

.: -1 -1.

4 - r .4 454,4.1

V

« , 1, .*A. 3 :.(.1 .4

.=.4-

0 .W,

+ 1re..... gl . „

4 i ,

11 It '1 111-111-1 I .

1 1/, 1,

..3

. 1, i. - 9. 4,-/

.,-1.

,, t\:/a* , 1

1/ I-- '» »=„,

94 .-

, r ' 2.1-,91,: 5 .

-,

The organic teams concentrated on TECHNOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONSimproving the conversion process fromchemical energy to electrical. One Technologically, ERA II provided theteam did extensive development work participating students an opportunityon a turbocharged air-motor burning to contribute to the abatement of thepulverized coal. Another team was energy crisis by developing alternateworking on a solvent refined coal energy hardware. In evaluating thefurnace driving a stirling engine teams' successes, one concludes thatbuilt from an old V-8 car motor. alternate energy sources of electri-

city still remain quite expensive,Factors contributing to the poor and unreliable. The average cost ofperformance of the ERA II projects power from all ERA II systems designedwere the complexity and immense size for the 20 kW hour load was 484/kWof the teams' systems. By requiring hour; while only two systems produced that ERA II projects produce a useful more than 10 kW hours in a 24 houramount of electrical energy, the size testing period. While the implemen-of the systems and their sophistica- tation of alternate energy sources ontion were greater than ERA I projects. a widespread scale as a viable sourceMany teams who had competed at ERA I of electrical energy remains unproven,returned with projects designed from many teams demonstrated innovativethe same basic ideas but usually thinking in several key areas.more complex and much larger thantheir ERA I projects. Oftentimes, The solar teams experimented with costthe immediate goal of getting the energy reducing materials for their collec-collection system designed, con- tors using, among other materials,structed, and operating unknowingly glass tubes, fiberglass molds,took precedent in time over fully black plastic ponds, etc. Extensivecompleting Aystem details. progress was exhibited in solar

tracking systems.

The windmill teams concentrated onimproving blade performance, weightreduction, and cost effectiveness.

EDUCATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS Extensive use of aluminium, plastics,fiberglassed honeycomb paper, and I

No matter what ERA II contributes modified bicycle wheels helped totechnologically in the short run, the reduce rotating weight and cost.real value and success of the program Blade systems capable of changinglies in its long run beneficial impact aerodynamics with windspeed toupon the student participants. The maximize performance were designedcompetition gave the team members an with movable blade tips andopportunity to apply their book-learned rotating airfoil assemblies as theengineering knowledge to a "knuckle- blades turned in the wind.busting" design and constructionproblem. Such an experience is usefulin that the participants experiencedthe problems of design, materials,organization, and communications earlyin their careers. The lack of severeconsequences allowed them the luxuryof introspective hindsight to improvemethods for the future. In addition,the interdisciplinary nature of theprojects necessitated the cooperativecontribution of many disciplines:physical sciences, journalism,business, public relations, etc. Thoseteams who sucessfully bridged the"discipline' s communications gap"not only contributed to their pro-ject's success, but also learned animportant social skill beneficial tolater professional work.

122

APPENDICES

A sponsors 124

B Advisory Board 125

C Rules&Guidelines 126

D symposium I &11 programs 147

E Newsletters 149

F SCORE Team Grants 178

G Scoring Documents 179

H Homesite Testing Documents 204

Final Test Event Judges 212

J Final Test Event Schedule 214

K SCORE Board of Directors 215

[ Team Fundraising Guide 216

M Cost Code 226

APPENDIX A

I. SPONSORS III. MANY OTHERS WHO CONTRIBUTED

The following organizations made major There were many other organizationscontributions to SCORE, Inc. for sup- and individuals who contributed toport of the Energy Resource Alterna- the overall success of the Energytives II Competition: Resource Alternatives II program.

This includes those who took part inGovernment the two symposia and final test event;

those who contributed funds, equip-U. S. Energy Research & Development ment, and supplies directly to the

Administration ERA II teams; and those who gave their@National Science Foundation time and assistance to the teams and

SCORE. Without such help, there wouldCorporations and Foundations not have been an ERA II Competition.

Allied Chemical Foundation IV. THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITYCarborundum CompanyCleveland-Cliffs FoundationExxon U. S. A. Foundation Finally, SCORE would like to thankGeneral Electric Foundation the faculty and administration atGeneral Motors Corporation the participating schools for theirInternational Business Machines generous support of the ERA II pro-

Corporation gram. The Massachusetts Institute ofInternational Paper Company Technology and Tufts University de-

Foundation serve special thanks for their sup-International Telephone and Telegraph port of SCORE and the ERA II Coordinat-

Corporation ing Committee. The University ofJohn Deere Foundation Oklahoma-Norman also helped greatlyLong Island Lighting Company in coordinating the ERA II SymposiumMobil Research and Development I. And, certainly, without the sup-

Corporation port of twenty-eight universities,Republic Steel Corporation the forty-three ERA II teams wouldRockwell International Corporation not have had the opportunity for aScott Paper Company Foundation tremendous learning experience.Shelby Mutual Insurance CompanyShell Oil Company V. FINAL TEST EVENT CONTRIBUTORSSperry Rand CorporationTexaco, Inc. Tremendous support for the SCORE/TRW Foundation ERA II Final Test Event came from

private organizations in the Tri-The Upjohn CompanyWestern Gear Corporation Cities. The list includes:Westinghouse Educational Foundation

Joint Center for Graduate StudyTri-City Nuclear Industry CouncilII. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Tri-City Technical CouncilADMINISTRATION - RICHLAND Battelle Pacific Northwest

LaboratoriesWe would like to express our public J. A. Jones Construction Co.thanks to the Energy Research and

Washington Public Power SupplyDevelopment Administration - Rich- Systemland, and its employees, for their American Association of Costoutstanding support of the Energy EngineersResource Alternatives II Final Test City of RichlandEvent. The great success of the Richland School District #400final testing was ensured by ERDA -

Washibgton State UniversityRichland's total commitment to the Westinghouse Hanford Co.program and by all the ERDA - Rich- Neil Lampson, Inc.land personnel who helped above and Coca Cola Distributors of Pascobeyond the call of duty. Tri-Cities· Water Follies

124

APPENDIX B

THE ERA II ADVISORY BOARD

R. A. CoitSenior Staff EngineerEnvironmental AffairsShell Oil Company

Dr. Edward Creutz

National Science FoundationAssistant Director of Research

Edward GrayOffice of Technology UtilizationNational Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Dr. Wassily LeontiefNew York University

Congressman Mike McCormackU. S. House of Representatives

John W. MitchellCollege of EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Dr. Jack SnellChief of Energy Conservation in the

Center for Building TechnologyU. S. Department of CommerceNational Bureau of Standards

Alex SquirePresidentWestinghouse Hanford Company

David E. Stock.Chairman, Advisory Board

' Department of Mechanical EngineeringWashington State University

125

.

APPENDIX C

ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES II COMPETITION

ERA II RULESand GUIDELINES

-1 - - -

*MEDECEMBER 1975 STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON RELEVANT ENGINEERING INC

For further information on the ERA II competition,

please contact:

1 ERA II Coordinating Committee

Joe Eschbach, ChairmanDale Wark

Kurt BergmannJon Anson

Prof. David Stock, Faculty Advisor

SCORE, ERA II Coordinating CommitteeDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringWashington State UniversityPullman, WA 99163(509) 335-7070

For more information on SCORE, please contact:

Mark L. Radtke, PresidentRoom 5-336MITCambridge, MA 02139(617) 253-6833

John H. Sununu, Chairman of the BoardRoom 105, AndersonTufts UniversityMedford, MA 02155(617) 628-5000 x268

127

ABSTRACT

This document presents a general outline and the specific rules for

the 1976-1977 SCORE national intercollegiate engineering competition.The year-and-a-half program is directed toward the design and constructionof innovative alternative energy hardware able to produce electric powerfor homes, farms and light industry. The emphasis in the design of thisprototype hardware will be on utilizing such nonconventional energysources as solar energy, synthetic fuels and wind. SCORE will provideseed money to help cover the cost of construction of the more innovativeprojects. All undergraduate and graduate students are encouraged todevelop, with faculty guidance, their hardware solutions to the nationalenergy problem and submit the system in competition with the ideas ofother students from the United States and Canada.

*

128

ERA II SCHEDULE

September March April 30, May 15, October 1, November 1, February May/June1975 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977

11111111ERA II 1st ERA II Design Proposals First Round Deadline Progress 2nd ERA II Final Test

, Announced Symposium Due For May of SCORE For Late Report Symposium EventNGrant Awards Grants Awarded Entries Due Final Reports

Due Two WeeksBefore FinalTesting

g

OBJECTIVES OF THE ENERGY RESOURCEALTERNATIVES II COMPETITION

A. To supplement engineering education with hardware design/fabricationprojects which give students real-world type experience.

B. To contribute to the solution of the world energy problem through student innovation in the field of albernative energy sources.

C. To increase public awareness of the nature of the energy problemand the innovative concepts the student teams develop to help solve 1it.

SCORE

ERA II is the fourth intercollegiate engineering competition sponsoredby SCORE, Student Competitions on Relevant Engineering. SCORE is astudent-run, non-profit corporation established in 1971 by the academicengiheering community to promote student inter-university programs.During the past four years, more than 4,000 students from 97 U.S. and

Canadian universities have participated in SCORE's 1971-72 Urban VehicleDesign Competition, 1973-74 Students Against Fires· competition, and1974-75 Energy Resources Alternatives I competition.

The SCORE organization consists of the national SCORE office locatedat the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tufts University, andthe ERA II Coordinating Committee at Washington State University. SCORE

competitions focus on areas where a technological solution to a significantcontemporary problem is possible. The challenge of developing newenergy sources is certainly worthy of such an international studenteffort.

For the past three decades, man has relied mainly on petroleum andnatural gas to supply his major energy needs. It is now clearly evidentthat the world demand for these fossil fuels is approaching the upper

limits of supply and that our natural petroleum reserves are beingrapidly depleted. We must develop alternative energy sources for thefuture.

The Energy Resource A,lternatives II (ERA II) competition focuses onpreviously underutilized and potentially significant energy resources.Solar energy, biological wastes, wind and coal are prime examples ofsuch resources.

The ERA I competition was recently concluded at Sandia Laboratoriesin Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a final testing program of 40 student-

built alternative energy projects from 33 U.S. and Canadian universities.ERA I allowed a variety of energy outputs that would be of value to ahome, farm or small industrial operation. ERA II concentrates on electricoutput because we at SCORE feel that this is now the real challenge forthe alternative energy field.ENERGY SYSTEMS

The energy systems developed for ERA II must be able to collectenergy from an alternative energy source and deliver it in the form ofelectric power. The collection, storage and delivery components must bedesigned and built using sound engineering principles. Innovation'is

130 '

the essence of the competition. The systems will be tested for their

ability to produce electricity by trying to match a load curve based onaverage household power consumption. The loads have been set at a levelreasonable for all anticipated energy source inputs.

In selecting an alternative energy source for conversion to electricalpower, consideration should be given to potential for innovation, itsavailability, efficiency of the conversion process (both current andpotential), economic implications, marketability, environmental impact,and safety. All of these considerations will vary according to theapplication and will be discussed by the team in its written reports tothe committee and oral reports to the judges. Scoring of the competition

will be based on four unequally weighted areas: innovation, systemperformance, economics and marketability.

Details of the energy system ipecifications are contained in theaccompanying Rules.

THE COMPETITION

Teams entering the competition may be composed of any undergraduateand graduate students and must have at least one faculty advisor.

Two symposia will be held during the competition to help informstudent teams of the current state of alternative energy technology andto aid in solving design and construction problems. The first symposium,scheduled for March 1976, will feature presentations by experts from avariety of fields, discussing the present status of nonconventionalenergy system. This should help provide basic knowledge for teams toaid in choosing and developing a project. The second symposium, plannedfor February 1977, will help provide answers to technical questions bygiving team members, the opportunity to discuss problems in workshopsessions with alternative energy experts and professional engineers.

Both symposia will include business meetings to discuss the competi-tion's rules, timetable and final testing procedures.

If any changes in the basic rules are made, teams will be notified

through newsletters which will be mailed regularly to keep teams informedof all competition news.

Team members will be required·to make a progress presentation tomembers of the Coordinating Committee at the second symposium. Telephonereports also will be required at regular intervals during the competition.

SCORE grants will be awarded based on an evaluation of a team's

Design Proposal, progress reports and requests for financial support forthe actual construction of the project. These grants are "seed money"

grants and in most cases will not pay for the entire project cost.SCORE will endeavor to assist teams in raising donations of equipment,

materials and supplemental funds locally. SCORE funds do not coverstudent.and faculty salaries or permanent equipment, an3-are not subjectto overhead charges. A "Memorandum of Agreement" detailing the exactusage of SCORE funds accompanies each grant.

The Design Proposal and project budget should be submitted as soonas possible after the first ERA Il Symposium and before April 30, 1976for consideration in the May round of SCORE grants. The informationrequired in the Design Proposal i.s detailed in the accompanying Rules.

The deadline for late entries in the ERA II competition is October 1,1976. No new entries will be allowed after this date without the specialpermission of the Coordinating Committee.

131

Each team must submit a written progress report by November 1,1976. This report, along with the regular telephone reports, will keepthe Committee informed of team progress and problems encountered, and

will be used to make supplemental SCORE funding decisions.The culmination of the competition will be the Final Testing Event

in late May or early June, 1977. All teams,' with their completed projects,will meet at a single test site for four days Of testing and evaluation.The student-built energy systems will be tested under real-world condi-tions to measure their performance accurately and allow their comparison.

The competing team members also will give oral presentations tojudges. These simulate a marketing presentation in which the studentstry to "sell" their hardware design to the judges. Innovation, cost-effectiveness, marketability and environmental impact will be among thedesign features emphasized. The judges will be research and practicingengineers, policy makers from government and industry, and professionalsi n the energy field.

Each team is required to write a final report on its project, whichwill be due two weeks before the Final Testing Event. Reports will beread by the judges and used as part of the scoring procedure.

The winners of the ERA II competition will be announced at theAwards Banquet at the conclusion of the Final Testing Event. Awardswill be given for overall standing, specific categories and specialrecognition. 1

COMPETITION RULES

1. TEAMS

1.1 All team members must be registered full- or part-time studentscurrently enrolled in a degree program at an accredited educa-tional institution. Participants may include:

a. Undergraduates and graduate students.

b. Co-op students who study full time (or equivalent) for atleast one year of the two years June 30, 1975 to June 30,1977 and work the remainder of the year.

c. Students who graduate in June 1976 and anytime there-after.

1.2 All teams must submit the attached entry form indicating

affiliation with an accredited institution and signed by thePresident, Dean of Engineering or a department head of thatinstitution. An initial entry form should be submitted assoon as possible. A final participation form will be requireda month prior to the final testing.

1.3 All teams must have one or more faculty advisors whose name(s),telephone number(s), and address(es) must appear on the entryform.

132

1.4 The team captain must be either an undergraduate or graduate

student. The major responsibilities of the team captain are:

a. To organize and coordinate team member efforts during thedesign and fabrication stage of the ERA II competition.

b. To insure that the team Design Proposal, Progress Reportand Final Report are written and sent to the appropriateparties by the deadline dates as indicated under "Reports. "

The team captain will be the Coordinating Committee's team

contact. All business between the Coordinating Committee anda team will be directed to the team captain; i.e., telephoneconversations, reports, newsletters, etc.

2. SPONSOR GUIDELINES

Entrant teams may solicit financial technical, or other assistance from

corporations, consultants, universities, governments and their agencies,other organizations, or individuals (referred to as "sponsors"), accordingto the following guidelines.

2.1 A "sponsor" will be defined as all divisions and. subsidiariesof one parent organization. No exception to this interpreta-tion will be permitted unless expressly approved in writing bythe Committee.

2.2 Teams may accept from sponsors any part, system, component,design or idea (hereafter called "elements") to be used withtheir entry, subject to the following constraints:

a. No sponsor-supplied, commercially available or nonstudentdesign element will be eligible for an award given forinnovative student design.

b. No sponsor-supplied element of a proprietary nature willbe permitted in the competition.

c. Innovative combinations or modifications of existingelements will be eligible for design awards.

2.3 In order to determine the role of the sponsor, all teams mustsubmit an analysis of sponsor.participation. A "SponsorParticipation Form" will be issued.

2.4 The Committee and its representatives reserve the right toinspect all components, technical drawings and design work ofan entry to evaluate the amount of sponsor participation. Thedecision of the Committee on this matter is final.

2.5 Except for items specified in Section 2.2, sponsors may actonly in an advisory capacity in the design of any component orsystem of an entry.

133

2.6 Advertising of industrial sp6nsorship or the use of suppliedcomponents via any media must be reviewed and approved by theERA II Coordinating Committee in writing prior to distributionor presentation.

2.7 Commercial advertising affixed to the project in the form ofdecals er lettered phrases shall be limited to a total size of0.116 m'.

2.8 No exceptions to these guidelines will be permitted, andviolation of them is sufficient ground for disqualificationfrom the competition.

3. DEFINITIONS

To clarify terminology in the sections which follow, these definitionshave been adopted.

3.1 A system contains an energy source and conversion componentsresulting in electrical output.

3.2 All products less complete than an energy source and conversioncomponent resulting in electrical output Will be referred toas components.

4. REPORTS

All teams will be contacted by telephone by the Coordinating Committeeat least once a month for "informal" progress reports during the dura-tion of the one-and-a-half-year competition.

Four formal reports are required. All formal reports must be of profes-

sional quality. All reports will use SI units. These reports are:

4.1 The Team Entry Form (attached), due as soon as possible. Nonew entries will be allowed after October 1, 1976 except by 'special permission of the Coordinating Committee.

4.2 DESIGN PROPOSAL

Design Proposals are due as soon as possible after the firstERA II Symposium, no later than April 30, 1976 to qualify forthe May round of grants. Each team is required to submit two

copies of a Design Proposal and budget to the CoordinatingCommittee. This report will be used by the Committee as thebasis for selecting projects to receive "seed money" grants

from SCORE. It should include the following items in theorder below:

a. One-page, double-spaced abstract labeled: PROJECT ABSTRACT.The project abstract is a summary describing in words theproposed project.

134

b. One page labeled: SYSTEM DIAGRAM. The system diagramillustrates the energy flow of the entire proposed system,

indicating in block notaion the identification and func-tion of key components.

c. One page, double-spaced, labeled: INNOVATION. The innova-tion page should describe the current "State of the Art"of existing systems which are at least similar in operatingprinciple to a team's proposed project. It also shouldidentify the areas of the team's proposed system wherethe team will be devoting the majority of its time.to

improvement upon existing technology.

d. One page, labeled: BUDGET. The budget should be anitemized accounting of all anticipated costs of theteam's project (attachment).

5 e. A section labeled: INPUT SPECIFICATIONS. This sectioni should provide a description of the energy availability

in the geographic area for which the project is designedto operate. Include appropriate graphs and documentationas described in Section 5, "Project Specification."

f. ECONOMIC PROSPECTS AND MARKETABILITY

With projects only in the proposal stage, it cannot beexpected that all facets of a project's economics can beassessed completely. However, since ERA II is stressingthe economic viability of alternative energy systems, it

is important for a team to have a grasp of the economicsof its proposed systems. Note that the results of theDesign Proposal economic calculations will not affect ateam's score at the end of the competition. Sectionsrequired in the Design Proposal will be:

(1) An approximate identification of the market fo.rwhich the system is proposed.

(2) A rough estimate of the proposed system's full-scalecost as installed in a residence and/or small business.

(3) A rough estimate of the cost to generate electricalpower in dollars/kWh, based upon a full-scale installa-tion. These calculations should follow the formatas presented in "Design Proposal Economic Costs"(attached).

g. A section labeled: SYSTEM INTEGRATION. To insure thatteams formulate their proposed systems to maximize perform-ance through a well integrated network of components,this section should described technically:

135

(1) System Output Design Goals

This sub-section should describe how much electricalpower, and in what form a team anticipates to producethis power from the system. Reasons for particular

choices of output goals should be stated.

(2) Component Matching Criteria

This sub-section should justify why a particularcomponent of a particular size has been chosen forthe system, and how the newtork of components contri-butes to achieving the team's output goals.

(3) Optional Storage Component Criteria

This sub-section should identify the parameters usedto calculate the energy available for storage in asystem, the maximum amount of energy storable in the

storage system and the reasons why a particular sizestorage system was chosen.

h. Assorted material not required in the above categories,but felt to be of value in the Committee's assessment ofa team entry.

i. A complete TEAM MEMBER PARTICIPATION LOG (See attached).List all members including the faculty advisor(s).

j. One page, labeled: ADDRESS. This should indicate theteam's mailing address, telephone, faculty advisor'saddress and telephone number.

4.3 PROGRESS REPORT

Each team must submit two copies of a progress report postmarkedno later than (tentatively) November 1, 1976. The progressreport will assist the Coordinating Committee in planning theworkshop sessions for the second ERA II Symposium. This

report should be modeled after the "Design Proposal," withsections concerning the following:

a. A one-page summary of the work completed to date.

b. All modifications to the original·design proposal supple-mented with photographs and revised drawings. (Note:modifications must be approved in advance by the Coordinat-ing Committee if the team is to continue using SCORE

grant funds).

c. A revised budget and list of expenses incurred to date.

136

d. An updated "Team Member Participation Log."

e. An enumeration and discussion of the problems the teamhas encountered with respect to its project and withrespect to the coordination of the competition.

4.4 Final Report

Two weeks prior to the final testing event, the ERA coordi-

nating Committee must have received three copies of eachteam's final project report. Reports will be read by thejudges and used as part of the scoring procedure. Thesereports must be as accurate, detailed and complete as possiblesince they will be a basis for. all future references to theprojects by the sponsor groups and the Coordinating Committee.Final reports must include:

a. A description of the final design in the following areas:

(1) A section labeled: INPUT SPECIFICATIONS. This sec-tion must ,state the input design criteria. Includedaily input graphs and documentation.

(2) A section labeled: SYSTEM DIAGRAM. This sectionmust contain the final energy flow diagram and a

prose description of each major block function.

(3) A section labeled: INTEGRAL SYSTEM DESIGN. This

section must describe the final component matchingcriteria as described in Section 5d and justify anydeviations from this in the actual hardware.

(4) A section labeled: HARDWARE. This section mustcontain complete specifications, drawings and photo-graphs of the project as actually constructed.

b. A page labeled: FINAL BUDGET RECONCILIATION. This mustinclude an itemization of income. sources and amounts, andan accounting of total expenses associated with project

construction. List travel expenses in a separate category.

c. Sections describing the following:

(1) INNOVATION: Description of student-designed, -modified and -built components. Emphasize theadvantages these new or innovative features haveover other research prototypes or current marketproducts.

(2) ECONOMICS: Future newsletters will indicate theexact format for reporting the calculations.

(a) Estimated mass production cost of project.

137

(b) Exotic material requirements. An estimate ofthe effect upon the price elasticity of the

materials based upon potential reserves.

(c) Energy accounting of system calculated over theprojected life of system.

(d) Energy cost estimate. An estimated cost of the

system to produce electrical energy in dollars/kWhfor the life of the system.

(e) Internal rate of return and benefit cost ratio.

(f) Operating costs on yearly basis for life ofmachine.

.(g) Maintenance costs on yearly basis for life ofmachine.

(3) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This should include theenvironmental impact of the project in operation onsite (more detail in future newsletters)..

(4) TEST RESULTS: Results of preliminary performancetesting of the project. (Note: In the event ofproblems with environmental ·conditions, transportationproblems, etc. during the final testing, the resultsof preliminary home testing of systems may be used,with permission from the Coordinating Committee, inlieu of final test results for scoring. As such, it

is to every team's benefit to perform home testingof the system before disassembly and reassembly ofthe system at the final testing site.

A specific forniat to follow in reporting the resultsof home testing will be given in later news bulletins.

(5) MARKETABILITY: A report concerning market areas inwhich the project can be used and what changes arenecessary to optimize for other areas; installationinstructions, ease of retrofitting, maintenanceschedule and safety considerations in use of project.

(6) EDUCATIONAL IMPACT: Each team will receive aSCORE-ERA II Educational Impact questionnaire inApril 1977. This questionnaire must be completedand included as a supplement to the project's finalreport.

(7) OPERATING INSTRUCTI,ONS: A simplified set of instruc-tions describing how to operate the project.

138

(8) A final "Team Participation Log."

(9) Critique of SCORE operations to date.

4.5 All documents required for entry as specified in Section 5must be received by the ERA II Coordinating Committee before aproject will be allowed at the final test event.

5. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS

5.1 Input

Each team must research and develop its own input require-

ments.

To determine what type of unit to develop, the team shouldconsider such items as the environment in which it is to beused, pollution, economics, retrofitting, etc.

Teams do not have to develop the system for their own region;i.e., a school in Michigan could construct a project for adesert in New Mexico.

All teams must have documentation of the region from which the

input power source is derived. The documentation includesweather conditions, air temperature„ relative humidity, availabilityof input energy source, .etc. , for an average day of bothsummer and winter.

Each team must provide graphs of these conditions for an

average day in both summer and winter.

The scources used to research all specifications (documented)

must be listed.

Documentation is necessary before beginning a project to

determine regional specifications, restrictions and feasibility.

5.2 Output

Acceptable forms of electrical output will be:

a. 115-volt, 60-Hz, sine wave

b. 115-volt DC

c. 24-volt DC

The system must be able to deliver a minimum of 20 kWh/24-hour period.

139

6. SCORING

Ethics of Scoring for ERA II

The ERA II scoring is designed to evaluate each team's performancein researching, designing and building an alternative energysystem. The emphasis will be on the innovation displayed in approach-ing the problem of producing electric power from these non-conven-

tional energy sources. The scoring system employed in ERA II willpenlize team entries which exhibit little or no attempt to extend

current state-of-the-art technology by student-applied innovation.

(Note: Awards will be presented for innovation and excellence ofdesign and fabrication for individual components of a system despitethe overall rating of the system.)

The actual scoring schedule will consist of four unequally weightedcategories, with internal subdivisions of unequal weight contributingto the category total points.

The four general categories and anticipated subdivisions are:

(1) Innovation (30% total points)

Points will be assigned to the following subgroups:

(a) Student-designed and -built hardware. Points will beawarded based on the degree of design innovation andstudent fabrication.

(b) Student Innovation of Concept. Points will be awardedbased upon the degree of concept innovation exhibited inthe system. This is independent of Sec. (a). This

section is designed to award points to a system that maybe poorly designed and fabricated, yet exhibits realinnovation in its basic concept of operation.

(c) Modification. Points also will be given for innovativemodification of commercially available parts or components.

(d) Storage Innovation. Points will awarded based upon thedegree of innovation exhibited by the students in theirsystem's optional energy storage system.

The performance section of the scoring system and thissection are intended to encourage team entries that willbe operated as peaking systems.

(2) Performance (25% total points)

Performance points will be based upon the technical tests ofthe project at the final test event. In the event that aproject fails to perform satisfactorily at final testing, the

team may request (subject to the committee's approval) thatvalidated preliminary test results be considered by the judges.

140

Performance points will be awarded in two categories:

(a) Total Output (50%)

Each system will be required to output 20 kWh in a24-hour period.

(b) Peaking Output (50%)

Systems will receive points for meeting the loadrequirements under the peaks in the load curve.

The distribution of peaking points will be determinedby the percent of the total area under the peaks inthe load curve relieved by a system (load curve

attached).

(3) Economics (25% total points)

Unequal weights as indicated will.be assigned to the followingsubgroups. Specifics of calculations will be presented inlater newsletters.

30% a. Energy cost: how much it costs for a system to produceelectrical energy in dollars/kWh for the life of thesystem.

15% b. Energy accounting of system.

20% c. Exotic material requirements (as described in reportsection).

20% d. Internal rate of return and benefit cost ratio.

(4) Marketability (20% total points)

Equal weights will be assigfied to the following subgroups:

a) Statement of existing potential marketb) Durability of systemc) Simplicity of systemd) Safety of systeme) Maintenance schedulef) Environmental impactg) All other sections contained in the final report section

5.4 (c) from a team entry, but not yet specificallymentioned.

141

DESIGN PROPOSAL ECONOMIC COSTS·

As part of the Design Proposal, a rough estimate of the cost to produceelectrical power is required. The following calculation format shouldbe used:

(1) Full-Scale Production Cost = P dollars.

(a) Estimated labor cost.

(b) Estimated materials cost.

(c) Estimated full-scale fabrication cost.

(2) Installation Cost = I dollars.Therefore, Installed Capital Costs = P+I.

(3) Equal-Payment Series Capital Recovery Calculation.

Given the installed capital cost of the system, the series of equal ipayments to be made each year to pay off the capital investmentover the life of the system (either the cost of borrowed money orthe opportunity cost of income. foregone) is given by:

A =.(P+I){1(1+1)n/[(1+1)n-1]} $/year.

(4) Depreciation Costs.

Using a straight-line depreciation scheme, the annual depreciationcost (assuming zero salvage value at the end of the system's life)

is given by:

B = (P+I)/n %/year.

(5) Equal-Payment Series Sinking Fund Calculation.

Giveh the installed capital costs of the system, the equal paymentsto be made each year to .re-purchase the system at the end of systemlife.is given by (assuming constant prices):

C = (P+I){i/[(1+i)n-1] } $/year.

(6) Yearly estimated maintenance costs = D, $/year.

(7) Yearly estimated operation costs = E, $/year.

(8) Yearly estimated energy output = F, kWh/year.-

Finally, Yearly Electric Energy Cost =F kWh/year

(A+B+C+D+E) $/year

(A+B+C+D+E) DollarsTherefore, Electric Energy Cost· = F kWh

These calculations should be performed three separate times usingfirst the 5% interest rate, next the 10% interest rate and finallythe 15% interest rate:

142

(3) i =0.05, 5%(b) i=0.10, 10%(c) i=0.15, 15%

The life of the system should be considered to be fifteen years.

(a ) n=15

In addition to the fifteen-year calculations, if a team believesthe expected life o.f its system to di ffer from 15 years, withproper documentation a team may perform additional calculationsusing its own expected system life.

BUDGET

As·stated in the guidelines, an itemized accounting of all anticipated.expenditures is required as part of the·Design Proposal (Section 5.2).The following forniat should be used in preparing the budget.

1. fitw-jlient

This section should contain an itemized accounting of all equipmentnecessary to build the system. This may not include permanentequipment such as is ordinarily bought by the college or university.

2. Materials

An itemized listing of materials to be purchased for fabrication oruse in a system.

3. Telephone

Teams probably will need to make phone calls to the CoordinatingCommittee in Pullman, Washington (approximately one per month), to

have questions answered and clear up any problems which may arise.The estimated cost of these communications should be included sothat they may be considered in :determining SCORE grants.

4. Cther

This section may include any necessary expenditure in the designand fabricati.on of the team project which cannot be included in theabove categories.

There will be two symposia and a final testing, which at least the team

captain should attend. At present, locations for these events have notbeen selected; therefore, estimates of travel expenses cannot be madeand v·till.not be considered in the first round of SCORE grants. Ubdatedbudgets will be requested as the''competition proceeds, and travel expendi-tures then can be added.

1

143

E

3.0

LOAD CURVE2.5 2.5 KW

.

2 KW2.0

20:30DemandRate 1.5 KWC KW) 1.5

17:30

1.0

75 KW TOTAL 36 KVVH 75 KW6:30 22:30

5

I Illlllllllllll1llllllllll0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4

Time of Day - 24hr. Clock

ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES II

TEAM ENTRY FORM

SECTION I AffiliationName of Institution

Name of Authorizing Official(Preside1t, Dean of Engr., Dept. Head)

Signature of Authorizing Official Date

SECTION II Faculty Advisor(s)

Name(s)

Position(s)

Address(s)

SECTION III Team RosterYear in Area(s) of Project Home Town and

Name of Student School Major Participation Newspaper

SECTION IV Project Idea

5

».

*

TEAM MEMBER PARTICIPATION LOG

University

Team Number

Dates of

Participation Area ofName Address Tel. # Major Begin Date End Date Responsibility

Energy Resource Alternatives ll*** Saturday, March 13 *** -5·5<3.--.224.--7

*** Sunday, March 14 ***

Morning: BREAKFAST at the

Conmlons 'W-' 1 1-- j

SESSION CHAIRMAN JON ANSON

Restaurant ,=„ t i BREAKFAST

SESSION CHAIRMAN DALE WARK9:00 Conversion to Electrical Power

9:00 Welcome UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA William Eaton

Roland Haden Independent Consultant

Chairman Electrical'Engr. 2:15 Alternative Energy ResourcesUniversity of Oklahoma Part 2, James Greene 10:00 Engineering Economics & Mrktg.

University of Pittsburgh · John Crowley

9:15 Introduction to SCORE United Engineers

Mark Radtke DESIGN WORKSHOPSPresident of SCORE 11:00 BREAK

3:00 Solar Systems9:30 The ERA II Competition Jerald Parker 11:15 Systems Integration

Joe Eschbach, Chairman Oklahoma State University Roy Kaplow

Coordinating Committee Professor at M.I.T.

Faculty Advisor Meeting9:45 Keynote Speaker Dave Stock 12:00 LUNCH

John H. Sununu, Chairman Washington State Universityof the Board, SCORE, Inc. DESIGN WORKSHOPS

3:30 Wind Systems --U10:30 BREAK Herman Dreves SESSION CHAIRMAN DAN.MASON

[-1-1Pinson Energy Corporation

10:45 Innovation 1:00Thermionics and Solar Cells F. Burton Sellers 4:00 Coal and Synthetic Gas Systems William Eaton

Texaco Develop. Corp. James Greene Independent Consultant

University of Pittsburgh 011:30 Rules & Guidelines Design Proposal Discussion

Joe Eschbach, Chairman Design Proposal Discussion Jon Anson & Kurt Bergmann

Coordinating Committee · Jon Anson & Kurt Bergmann Coordinating Committee

Coordinating Committee 12:30 LUNCH 1:30 Heat Engines

6:30 BUFFET William R. Martini

SESSION CHAIRMAN KURT BERGMANN Research ProfessorUniversity of Washington

1:30 Alternative Energy ResourcesPart 1, Dean Eckhoff 2:30 Energy Storage Systems

P

Kansas State University Evening Beer Bust Philip JarvinenLincoln Laboratories

1..CS

00

Energy Resource Alternatives il11 *** Friday, February 4 *** UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON *** Saturday, February 5 ***

BREAKFAST SESSION CHAIRMAN KIRK ROSENER BREAKFAST

12:30 Project Management SESSION CHAIRMAN DAN MASONDr. Robert Beals

SESSION CHAIRMAN DALE WARK Dept. of Industrial Engrg. 9:00 GeneratorsTexas A&M R. D. Chenoweth

9:00 Welcome Dept. of Electrical Engrg.Dean Honeywell 1:30 Innovation Texas A&MCollege of Engineering Hank M. WalesUniversity of· Houston Value Management Specialist 9:45 Final Test Event-Socring

General Electric Co. Joe Eschbach & Kurt Bergmann9:20 Introduction to SCORE Coordinating Committee

Rich Aseltine WORKSHOPSPresident of SCORE 10:45 BREAK

2:15 Solar9:40 Keynote Speaker Dr. James Colthart 11:00 Final Test Event-Logistics

Delbert Fowler Shell Development Corporation Bill Cawley,.U.S. E.R.D.A.Regional Administrator Richland, WashingtonRegion VI Coal J. Anson, Coordinating Com.Fdderal Energy Admstrtn. Dr. Paul Scott

Asst. Director, Univ. Programs 12:00 LUNCHU.S. E.R.D.A.-Fossil Energy

10:30 BREAK WORKSHOPSWind

Robert Dodge 1:00 Methane10:50 ERA II Objectives Automatic Power Division Dr. Jack Matson

Dave Stock Penwalt Corporation University of HoustonAdvisor, Coordinating Com.

Washington State Univ. 6:00 Faculty Advisor StorageNo host cocktail hour Bill Smith

11:15 LUNCH Mgr. Battery Storage Plnng.Team Captain Meeting 7:00 DINNER ESB Incorporated

APPENDIX E,CORE

STUDENT COMPETITIONS

ON RELEVANT ENGINEERING INC

'. ERA HNE LEITER

Feb. 1976 Volume 4 Letter 1

Another Student Competition on .*s,1, 11:mi*WIT&;;173 i---52<29,rs,muir-:-Relevant Engineering (SCORE) is on the *s''»TS''te,:.':t-11#*a. rmove. More than 4,000 students have /4/*1*St W , 9 5 1-,211/ iparticipated in the first three SCORE

.•-*-*-:,-iglimicompetitions. This year's competition

D e, 'll_ 1looks to be the most promising yet. lili-This year's Energy Resource -,2,)..)4" 2.2--*05':-1Alternatives II (ERA II) competition I

will focus on the design and fabrica- =ii .AFF,#ilri'.l'. Mtion of systems which will use energy 'Mill"%FiT -a:- 4-/.1 i.-- Sed,; .£ i.11*sources other than natural gas or m.-77*01 4 -petroleum to produce electrical power. :,661.1.*i 1. -1.- Trigi::I:illHopefully universities, colleges andindividuals interested in the possi-bility of participating in the ERA II From left to right: Jon Anson, Kurtcompetition have received a set of the Bergmann, Joe Eschbach, Dan Mason, andRules and Guidelines. If you have not Dale Wark. Standing is Dr. Davidand are interested, please phone or Stock.write us at the location indicated atthe end of this newsletter. Kurt Bergmann is in charge of

The ERA II COORDINATING COMMITTEE communications. He will be respon-sible for making sure everybody re-

Washington State University has ceives the right information. He willbeen chosen as the location for the also be responsible for phone contactERA II student coordinating committee. with the schools in the Pacific andMembers of the committee are Joe Mountain time zones. Kurt is a juniorEschbach, Kurt Bergmann, Jon Anson, in Mechanical Engineering and getsDale Wark, and our faithful accountant into skiing as well as our hair.Dan Mason. Dave Stock is the faculty Jon Anson has primary responsi-advisor to our group. bility for the final testing event.

Joe Eschbach is the chairman of He will be the individual making phoneour committee. We look up to him as contacts with the people in the Cen-our leader because he is taller than tral time zone. Jon spent a summerany of us. Joe has received a degree and a semester working at Tektronixin economics this semester and will and another summer at Weyerhaeuser asbegin graduate work in Thermal Sci- part of the Industrial Participationences for his M.S. in M.E. Joe also Program (IPP) at WSU. The IPP allowshas a special interest in Hi-Fi equip- engineering students (Jon is a mechan-ment. ical engineering student) to gain work

149

experience in the field of engineering

prior to graduation. Jon has a pri-vate pilot's license and enjoys flyingand skiing.

Dale Wark is our symposium coor-dinator and will be making phone con-tacts in the Eastern time zone. Toget hold of people at 9:00 a.m. hewill have to be on the phone at 6:00 -

a.m. PST. Dale has also participated 4.7, I - « .

in the IPP, working at the Puget Sound

Naval Shipyard. He enjoys just abouter:'· 4- ,1.1, 4.4 ''1 91* - I"anything other than classes.

Originally there were four mem- 62*.$4bers on the committee but we have

1'•.6 01 2 4--3.. C·::323acquired a fifth wheel named Dan Mason 4I "·•1. 0 .J -·a/,// • ' '44I

(accountant), who has worked his way. I

, , ' ' "4. Hillign*'*61 .All

into our hearts, our office and ourfinances. Dan is a sophomore in B.A. Washington State Universityand has a bowling average of 180.

Dr. Stock is the committee's ad- 16,000 this year. Students at WSU arevisor and has been an advisor in the a close-knit group (nearly all livingpast two SCORE competitions. His fa- within walking distance of the campus.miliarity with SCORE competitions will We're one of the top five residencebe of great value to the ERA II Coor- universities west of the Mississippi.dinating Committee. He enjoys horse- Working together, we have earned theback riding, but it appears that his distinct honor of being the secondhorses aren't as fond of him as he is highest per capita drinking universityof them, as one of them ran him over in the U.S. (recently slipping fromand broke his hip last summer. the number 1 spot).

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY COMPETITIONS AND MAILING STATISTICS

Washington State University, a Past competitors say that themember of the all-powerful PAC-8, is competition will give the studentslocated in Pullman, Washington, one of practical engineering experience whichthe richest wheat-growing areas in the you often don't learn from the text-world. WSU is noted for its contribu- books. You also learn how to worktions to agricultural education, re- with other people as a team. Collegessearch and engineering. and universities from forty-nine

Degree programs are offered by states, nine foreign countries, ninethe Colleges of Agriculture, Veteri- Canadian provinces and one U.S. terri-nary Medicine, Economics and Business, tory have indicated interest in theSciences and Arts, Home Economics, 1976-77 SCORE, ERA II competition. WeEducation, Pharmacy and Engineering. have sent out about 1,000 copies of

The College of Engineering, show- the Rules and Guidelines for theing steady growth over the past few competition to individuals at theyears, has a current enrollment of various institutions. More than1,300. Instruction and research share 65 percent of the four-year collegesequally important roles in the Col- and universities with engineeringlege's program. programs in the United States have

There are slightly more than responded.21,000 people in Pullman, while the We are very enthused about theUniversity enrollment is more than prospects for this year's ERA II

150

competition. Teams are required to SCORE PRESIDENTsubmit a design proposal to the com- The President of SCORE is Mark Radtke,mittee before April 30, 1976 forconsideration in the May round of

a recent graduate of M.I.T. This will

SCORE grants. The required informa-be the third SCORE competition that

tion for the design proposal is de-Mark has been involved in. If you

tailed in the Rules and Guidelines. have any questions, please give the

Don't be left out--enter a team now. Coordinating Committee a call or writeus at the address shown below. If we

SYMPOSIUMS don't have an answer to your question,

The first of two planned sympo-Mark will.

siums of the ERA II competition has PERSONS TO CONTACT FOR QUESTIONSbeen scheduled for March 13 and 14,1976, at the University of Oklahoma at

SCORE, ERA II Coordinating Committee

Norman, Oklahoma. The two-day programDepartment of Mechanical,Engineering

will present energy resource expertsWashington State University

discussing energy resource alterna-(509) 335-7070Pullman, WA 99163

tives. A better understanding of theERA II competition and the philosophyof'SCORE will be explained. Addi-tional details about the ERA II sym- Mark Radtke, President

National SCORE Officeposium will be given in the next Room 5-336newsletter. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA 02139(617) 253-6833

- SCORE, ERA 11 Coordinating Committee , Department of Mechanical Engineering' ' Washington State Universityf Pullman, Washington 99163

151

*ME STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON

RELEVANT ENGINEERING INC

,- ERA 11--=W LETTERVolume 4, Letter 2, February 20, 1976

MARCH 13 & 14FIRST SYMPOSIUM TO BE HELD IN OKLAHOMA

As was indicated in our first news- Dale Wark, the Symposium Directorletter, the first ERA II Symposium for the ERA II,Coordinating Committee.will be held on March 13 and 14, 1976 just last week visited with the Sympo-at the University of Oklahoma in Nor- sia Committee at the University ofman, Oklahoma. The two-day program Oklahoma, headed by Laurie Morgan, towill present energy resource experts check on preparations and facilities.discussing energy resource alterna- Dale's response to the question of how

things look at the University of Okla-homa was: "Fantastic." The Univer-sity of Oklahoma has the Oklahoma Cen-ter for Continuing Education located

-, ,„ right on campus. The Center is com-posed of approximately one-half dozenbuildings that are solely directed toconvention and symposium operations.The very excellent facilities at theUniversity of Oklahoma and in Normanshould make the ERA II First Symposiumtremendously successful. Dale has al-ready suggested that he would gladly

During the Coordinating Committee's give up his apartment in Pullman fortrip to M. I.T., Dale Wark, ERA II living space like that at the U of 0;Symposia Director, worked at the few accommodations are as nice asM.I.T. SCORE office on preparations those that all ERA II First Symposiumfor the first ERA II Symposia. participants will be staying in.

FUNDINGtives. And a more complete under- Turning to the ever-popular topicstanding of the ERA II competition and of money: how to get it, and how muchthe philosophy of SCORE will be pre- is needed for participants at thesented. First Symposium. SCORE will be paying

Since the initial announcement of for the room and board of all Sympo-the symposium, the ERA II Coordina- sium participants during the duration

ting Committee has been feverishly of the two-day event. This means that

working with the Symposium Committee Symposium participants need only pro-at the University of Oklahoma to pull vide for the cost of transportation tothe event together. and from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

There will be free transportation from

152

the airport to the University. The REGISTRATION INFORMATIONERA II Coordinating Committee strongly The attached Symposium schedulesuggests that ERA II teams contacttheir appropriate department heads and gives more detail on the specifics ofdeans for the transportation funds. the topics and time schedule, and a

registration blank to fill out.

PROPOSAL WRITING SEMINAR In consulting the airlines, there

The first ERA II Symposium will are many flights into and out of Okla-

feature two new topics that have never homa City throughout the weekend, It

been included in any of the past Sym- should be no problem for Symposium

posia: (1) a Design Proposal Writing participants to stay the duration of

Seminar will cover the ethics andthe two-day event, and still be able

structure of design proposal writingto make connecting flights into and

out of Oklahoma City.in general. This portion will be use-ful to all participants in writing de- Remember, the place is the Uniyer-sign proposals both for the ERA II sity of Oklahoma on March 13 and 14 atcompetition, and any endeavors in the ERA II Symposium. Symposia parti-one's later professional career that cipants should plan to arrive in Nor-require proposal writing. In addi- man, Oklahoma on Friday, March 12 fortion, the design proposal writing sem- registration. This promises to be theinar will focus on how the ERA II de- best Symposium yet offered. Don't besign proposals should be written for left out--mail your Symposium registra-maximum clarity and relevant information today!!tion content. We are looking forwardto this seminar being an important ad- COORDINATING COMMITTEEdition to the Symposia that should in- MEETS WITH SCORE OFFICERSform all participants.

FACULTY ADVISOR MEETING& ADVISORY BOARD

The Faculty Advisor Meeting will be The ERA II Coordinating Committee,Joe, Dale, John, Kurt and Dave Stock,held during the workshop periods on

the first day of the Symposium. The have just returned from meetings with

meeting will be chaired by executives SCORE at M.I.T., and with the AdvisoryBoard in Washington, D.C.of SCORE, and the ERA II Coordinating

Committee. The thrust of the Faculty At M.I.T., the Coordinating Commit-Advisor Meeting will be to explain in tee met with Mark Radtke, President ofgreater detail the ethics and objec- SCORE, Charles Barringer, Executivetives of SCORE competition. In addi- Secretary of SCORE, and John Sununu,tion, the position of Faculty Advisor Chairman of the Board of Directors.and the role he should assume in SCORE Primarily, the meeting served to co-competition will be discussed. ordinate the final efforts on the

Overall, the Symposium should be First Symposium between the SCORE and

attended by all team members who can Coordinating Committee offices. In

make it. The absolute minimum should addition, a preliminary budget for the

be the Team Captain and Faculty Advi- respective offices and competition was

sor if possible. Laurie Morgan, organized and approved.

Chairman of the University of Okla- While in Boston, Mark devoted a lothoma Symposia Committee, is inviting of time seeing to the room and boardmany of her friends to the beer party necessities of the Coordinating Com-on Saturday evening. So how can you mittee. It wasn't only words thatall resist? flowed while we were there.

153

Dale received the hardest workout representatives who aid the Coordina-in these meetings, discussing plans to ting Committee in technical sugges-

make the first ERA II Symposium the tions, choosing speakers for the Sym-

I. ' . - : 1-15 r-T- 1. . r. 1. ......i posium, etc. At the first AdvisoryBoard meeting, Edward Creutz, Jack

bRJ · ' 4 '. 1 ! . i : 1-. 1 , 2 Snell, Ed Gray, Bill Porter (repre-··i·*:'·it·-· 4;,;+ . :11·!"· .e.ii...4 ... 1.., senting Austin Heller) were able to

21211.,11.ith:t ·., 52.t,i P.1 atte.d. The Advisory Board gave ex-T.r -''At'...1.. '$,4-pi.'a{ 6'2' '1 tensive suggestions that will make the I.Abikwv W 9 .fn: 4 competition and symposia run more-*.9*al--L=,s.#-Al'UP-' 1 smoothly. In addition to the Advisory I/Mascri--.- ': -== *1 Board members present and the Coordi-r'===. -- .1 *Ali nating Committee, Charles Barringer, 14. the Executive Secretary of

SCORE, and V. Mark Radtke, President of SCORE, werealso present. All partiek came away

Left to right: John Sununu, Chairman from the meeting feeling that impor-of the SCORE Board of Directors, Mark tant suggestions and points had beenRadtke, President of SCORE, Charles made by the Advisory Board.Barringer, Executive Secretary ofSCORE, David Stock, ERA II Coordina- ADVISORY BOARDting Committee Faculty Advisor.

MEMBERS LISTEDbest SCORE Symposium yet. Jon slept,suffering from jet lag, and Kurtflashed film for an immortal record of Listed below are the names and ad-

dresses of the members of the ERA IIthe encounter, excerpts of which areAdvisory Board.

printed here in the Newsletter.David E. Stock, Assistant Professor

Directly after Boston, the Coordi-Department of Mechanical Engineeringnating Committee proceeded to Washing-Washington State University

ton, D.C. for a one-afternoon meetingwith the Advisory Board. The Advisory R. A. CoitBoard, as listed below, is a body of Senior Staff Engineerindustrial, government and educational Shell Oil Company

U of H is first

TEAM ENTRIES BEGIN TO ARRIVEBe sure to fill out the Team Entry Donald Sands Steven Larson

forms attached to the ERA II Rules and Mark Ownby Ray PayneGuidelines. The University of Housto,i Bryan Chambers Ernie Kacheris the first school to send in not one Robert Polland Tony Finneganbut three Team Entry forms. Congratu- Susan Jackson Hugh Harringtonlations, and welcome to the new ERA II Ted Bowers Thomas DeRouenteam members: Henry Keller David Allen

Gal Medora Antoinette BooneBrett Babbitt Anthony RichardCharles Redding Osagiede Macaulay

Doug JaLuaz John McGarity

Dave Bilberry Tom ShaddoxJim Davis Vernon WadeBill Adams

Brad Linder Don Dickey Gerald ShoultsA. Youssefi Stanley HopfeDonald Laird Gary Somberg Forrest Gibbs Paul OrtzMark O'Neill John English 1Barry Wind Robin Ramirez

154 1

Advisory Board List (Continued)

Edward Creutz Wassily LeontiffAssistant·Director of Research Professor of EconomicsNational Science Foundation New York University

S. William Gouse Congressman Mike McCormackDeputy Assistant Administrator - U.S. House of Representatives

Fossil Energy John W. MitchellU.S. Energy and Research Develop-ment Agency Professor of Mechanical Engineering

University of Wisconsin - MadisonEdward Gray Jack SnellOffice of Technology UtilizationNASA Chief of Energy Conservation in the

Center for Building TechnologyAustin Heller National Bureau of StandardsAssistant Administrator for Conserva-

tion

U.S. Energy Research and Develop-ment Agency

- SCORE, ERA Il Coordinating Committee Department of Mechanical Engineering

' ' Washington State Universityf Pullman, Washington 99163

155

3009/ STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON


,- ERA INEW LEITER

Vol. 4, Letter 3 - April 1976

SYMPOSIUM - At the'13 first ERA I I Sympo- 1'

I r -

- * I sium, students and

» 1-, - 1 4 .1- 11.- 1 faculty members had1, I

· the opportunity to1' 1: el' I 11 1 1

*49 r. tfind out more about

• new energy sources1. p i(or new uses for old

,A, ....1*, . ,t. /1. i ones).

M *4. JA#-, ... 4.

I -1/,SIT A .'-·e

. 11 - -311 1 J

e,4 i 42 --.

LI

ERA 11 SYMPOSIUMThe ERA II competition was offici- Friday night at the Oklahoma City

ally kicked off with the SCORE spon- Airport--in talking to them it ap-sorship of the competition's first peared that even they were not sure

Symposium held at the University of how they got to Oklahoma. Finally,Oklahoma, March 12-14. The attend- a team member from the University ofance at the Symposium broke all pre- Halifax flew his own plane from NovaVious SCORE records--approximately Scotia to Boston to catch a commer-100 students and a handful of facultyadvisors registered by Saturday morn-ing.

Innovation, which will be heavily Fi-1< -7*#•MISJM*f .LAVY"qstressed in the competition, was even r *t(LIF t"'.,•. l" '#v '1 ba. 6 A 'f' ' heplip-Ilil-

„ti,i,; in s e,c„dt t,„lt,m- W -,1-1 University of Oklahoma. Team members , -"rle -0*..Mil./...from the University of West Virginia I. ·i j '4#Il.Il-drove for approximately three daysfrom Morgantown to Oklahoma City,while students from the University of

lillililliblildf VillillillimmillilillillillillIllinois at Urbana drove continuous- 4.6...ly and swiftly throughout Fridaynight to reach Norman by the morning. SYMPOSIUM REGISTRATION - Students and

Two fellows from the University of faculty members sign up for the firstWisconsin at Madison arrived late ERA II Symposium.

156

cial flight to Oklahoma City. Al-though some members arrived a 1 ittl ebedraggled, all in all everyone was „=

very excited about the Symposium. ..

Each morning of the two-day Sym-posium presented speakers addressingthe general topics of alternative

energy sources: wind, solar, fos-sil, synthetic gas--highlighting keyaspects of a topic that may particu-larly suit or disable it as an al Lei -native energy source.

In addition, general talks werepresented on energy conversion, en-ergy costing, innovation and systems WIND WORKSHOP - Herman Drees of Pinsonintegration. Energy Corporation discusses some spe-

Each afternoon was broken into cifics of wind-powered systems at aspecific design workshops. Key areas design workshop.of each general energy source, con-version process and energy storagemethod were concentrated on, led by a TEAM ENTRY FORMSperson who has had practical designexperience in each area. Have you completed your team entry

After the intense proceedings of form yet? If not, do it today. Re-the first day, everyone was able to member, you cannot receive the spe-relax over a beer and good conversa- cial attention of the Coordinatingtion at the local University of Ok- Committee unless we have you regis-lahoma hot spot, the Jockey Strap tered as a team. There is a specialTavern. team mailing list, and in order to be

For those ERA II competition mem- on it we need a team entry form.bers who were not able to attend the

Symposium, a transcription of theproceeding is being compiled by theCoordinating Committee. The tran-scription will also include the ERA

TELEPHONE NUMBER MISTAKEII Design Proposal Writing Seminar With our last newsletter, we sentpresented by the Coordinating Com- out the ERA II Symposium I schedulemittee at the Symposium. A copy of and preregistration sheet (yellowthe Proceedings and also a Fund- paper) with the wrong area code forraising Guide will be available the Coordinating Committee. It readsupon the Coordinating Committee's (206) 335-7070 where it should bereceipt of a Team Entry Form from (509) 335-7070.ERA II teams. Jon, Administration Director for

the Coordinating Committee, made the

mistake. If you think that three-digit numbers are a problem for him,

DESIGN PROPOSALS you should see what he does with

DUE APRIL 30 tough three-letter words like cat,dog, etc.

In order to be considered for the In any event, don't make the mis-first round of grants to be issued be- take of dialing the wrong area code.

fore June 1, 1976, the Project Design If you do, your call will end up onProposal must be sent to the Coordi- the Pacific Ocean side of Washington

nating Committee by April 30, 1976. State.

157

POSTER COMPETITIONAs announced at the Symposium, the face when it is nationally disbributed,

Coordinating Committee is sponsoring 2) a case of the designer's favoritean ERA II poster competition. Inter- beverage at the next Symposium, andested persons should design a poster 3) the eternal gratitude of the Coordi-that thematically describes the com- nating Committee.petition: alternative energy elec-trical production, student-designedand -built, education, etc. These COORDINATING COMMITTEEare only ideas of what one may wish MESSAGEto focus upon.

The idea is to develop a poster As we told those team members atthat is both eye-catching and yet the Symposium, the Coordinating Com-tells people about the thrust of the mittee should be viewed by all teamsERA II competition. as an aid, not as a judge. Realisti-

The only restrictions are that the cally, the Coordinating Committee

design must be on an 84 x 11 sheet of never judges the teams' design propo-paper, and the design must include sals, final reports or final projectthe name SCORE and ERA II Competition. hardware. All judging in the compe-

The awards are irresistible: 1) a tition is performed by impartial com-credit to the designers on the poster (Cont. on p. 4)

T - S H 1 R T SThe Coordinating Committee has two

styles of competition-related T-

style has SCORE emblazoned across the 'shirts for sale at $3.50 apiece. One

front, while the other has Energy Re-source Alternatives II delicatelystenciled across the breast. These ria,shirts are first-rate quality, all

'.; 4, Oj ' -LAdone by a commercial shirt factory.If you would like some, just write

and tell us how many you want, what .* V M

style and what sizes (S, M, L and XL).The shirts are made of 100% cotton.

*'= 1 1. ItThose who bought the shirts last

4,1,11-*il- /1 f

year have expressed extreme satisfac- r-*-libl-/4-/4 *%

, odnfm„lett:, 1 11:;Icbehar:e I„B,::„:,: k- '..... - #111 IML ·.-/1.8.......wild occurrences while wearing their /*Fi,MI. «--=/'//fli shirts, especially when going on a -Di--Idate with a SCORE T-shirt.

158

RULES & GUIDELINES ERATA SHEET

Small typo and duplication mis- to worry about the Sinkingtakes have been noted in the Rules Funds, so di sregard them.and Guidelines. Please make the

b) Drop section 1 (c), relating toappropriate corrections and dele- "Full-Scale Fabrication Costs."tions:

For our costing, labor and mate-1. Reference Mistakes rials are adequate.

a) On page 10 in 4.4, Final Report, 2. Forms of Power Outputpart (a) (3), a reference ismade to section 5d. The refer- 220 volts, 60-Hz sine wave, and D.C.

ence should read "4.2 (g)." can be added to the list of accept-able outputs already contained in

b) On page 14 in (4) Marketability, the Rules and Guidelines (which arepart (g), a reference is made to 115 and 24 volts).section 5.4 (c). The referenceshould read "4.4 (c)." UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON

c) On page 16, right under Budget, TEAM ENTRYa reference is made to Design An apology to Kirk Rosener of theProposal (section 5.2). The University of Houston. We inadver-reference should read "Design teritly left his name off the secondProposal (section 4.2)." newsletter under the University of

2. Percentage Mistake Houston team entry roster.

On page 14 in (3) Economics, part(a), it reads 30% where it shouldread 45%.

Also, some revisions have beenmade to the Rules and Guidelines: (Cont. from p. 3)

1. Design Proposal Economic Costsmittees composed of appropriate rep-

Revision resentatives from industry and educa-tion. The Coordinating Committee

a) On page 15, (5) Equal-Payment exists to define and lubricate theSeries Sinking Fund Calculation competition structure. We can onlyis being dropped. Sinking Fund help teams by being taken into theirCalculations are used in large confidence. So, if problems arise,businesses and usually not in feel free to contact us for help. Itsmall businesses or households. can only help your project, not hurtWe feel you should not be made it.

„- SCORE, ERA Il Coordinating Committee Department of Mechanical Engineering' ' Washington State Universityr Pullman, Washington 99163

159

,OORE STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON


P. ERA liNEW LEITER

Vol. 4, Letter 4, May 1976

TEAM ENTRY FORMS SCORE grants, although substantial,are not generally enough to finance an

If you have a SCORE/ERA II Team entire project. They are intended asEntry Form, be sure to fill out the "seed money" grants. It is likelyform in the back of the Rules and teams will want to seek additionalGuidelines and send«it to,us. funds from their school or local in-

We are developing a team·mailing dustry. A fund-raising guide will belist so thatike-can :send{pertinent mailed to all teams which have sent usteam-related:information directly-to team entry forms.the tdams:-This' will enable us to-'- 4 4.--..»speed the distribution of team infor- -,1 - - -· '-mation, as well as.cut costs. .

So send us.your..team entry {form as ·, . ' . PERFORMANCE SCORING 21soon as possible. .Be sure to include,, ' .,t h.- / 9the team and team captain's name, ,ad- » Questions have been'raised as todress, and phone number. :": · C i how points will be awarded'-'in the

' -_ - . Performance section of the Rules andGuidelines.

«,Of»the total -scoring points; 12.5%DES I GN PROPOSAL' ·EVALUAT,ION will'ibd·awarded for "PeakingiOutput",

andi12.5% will' be awarded.for' 'ITotalWe will be:evaluating the group of Output",,(see Rules and Guidelines).

design proposals.that, we have tefeived Measurements will be made. at the Finalby mid-May to d6termine the size of-._/Test Event to detdrmine-your system' sgrants to be distributed to'each-ofF abil ity'to>,produce:total output andthe teams that al eady have sent.·de- . · . peaking output.3-"sign proposals in:1 ** . , ''"Total ,Oj,tput" will be scored on a

Incidentally, Rtitgers University was linear s'cale. For 20 kWh in a 24-hrthe first university .to send us.a. de- period„ thef system will receive 100%sign proposal. .o f the 12.5% scoring points

allocated IWe wish to emphasize·that if you . ·to the.3"Total Output" section. Addi -did not get your design proposal.in by tional points will not be given for 1April 30, it does inot mean-you will ' .-:Total Output that exceeds 20 kWh in areceive a smaller fant.' What.it w,4 24-hr period. For 0 kWh in a 24-hrmeans is that you 'won't receive.3,t-as period, the system will receive 0% ofsoon.

4<'' · ''· ·. C the "Total Output" points. Similarly,The disbursement of SCORE grants to for 10 kWh in a 24-hr period, the

e split into.Tote than system will receive 50% of the 12.5%onehallotmentlover the year aRd <* hal f scori ng poi nts all ocated to the "Totalof the competition. We wish to re- Output" section.

ceive further input from teams as to Peaking points will be awarded on atheir progress in order to make a bet- system's ability to meet the peakingter determination of need. area under the load curve. The peak-

160

ing area is defined as the of the load fTotal output kWhl

curve above the 0.75 kW level. The l 20 kWh ·12.5% total pointspeaking area contains 16 kWh in a 24-hr period.

There is the obvious implied trade- flol

off between "Peaking Output" versusPoints

awarded = trEJ ' 12.5% +"Continuous Output". A team may notwish to include a storage system as (2011-1 · 12.5%such; they may produce the 20 kWh/day l20J

by continuous power output--but withnone of the peaks in the load curve Points awarded = 7.8% + 12.5% of totalrelieved. This team would receive100% of the "Total Output" points, but scoring points.

Points awarded = 20.3% of total0% "Peaking Points". Alternatively, a

produce 16 kWh of output in the peaksteam using a storage system might scoring points.

with a 4 kWh elsewhere would receiveIf questions still persist, please100% of the "Peaking Output" points

and 100% of the "Total Output" points. (509) 335-7070.

give the Coordinating Committee a call

In its design, each team must considerthe possible tradeoff in "PeakingOutput" versus "Total Output" versusthe additional cost and complexity of OTHER TEAMS' PROGRESSa storage system.

The Load curve contained in theRules and Guidelines is shown below: The Coordinating Committee has

talked to several schools to get a re-port on their progress and problems.

Christian Brothers College of Memphis,Tennessee is going through an evolu-

Peaking area under tionary process in its design. They8*7 the Load Peaks =E I 16 kWh/day. started with wind-augmented solar

FIE:/8/ .'UL,Whi Wheel powered by solar heat. When thecells and are now working on a Minto

Coordinating Committee talked to them,they were redoing some calculations,

Below is a sample output curve from as somebody apparently dropped aa hypothetical team showing how it decimal point (remember, calculatorswould be scored:

are not perfect).Amarillo College at Amarillo, Texas

Peak load relieved is pushing ahead with three one-hour

by system =ends. The team members are workingmeetings a week, plus nights and week-

10 kWh/day. hard, as they are starting from the

13 Additional output basics and workin'g up, and this in-cludes learning aerodynamics from the

1 7 not in peaks was =/77n777X 13 kWh/day.

beginning.

'==-3 Three teams from the University of

Houston are attacking three differentfronts. Proposed are wind-, wave-,

and solar-powered projects. The wind(Peak output kWhl team is working on special blade tipsPoints awarded =l 16 kWh J

'that will serve as speed brakes if the

windmill rotates too fast. They've

12.5% of total points +also actively scrounged $1,000 worth

161

of material to build a 35-foot tower. Hopefully, we will be able to talk toThe Coordinating Committee hopes that you soon to find out what you've beenother teams will search out and ask doing.for such donations. A microcomputeris planned for the control system for

KEEPING UP WITHthe heliostatic set of tracking mir-

rors for their solar project, and THE COMPETITIONpossibly a storage component will beadded. Waves don't look like they In future Newsletters, we wouldcontain a lot of hydrostatic head, but like to include information as to thewith Houston's wave-amplification progress of different teams throughoutsystem, their wave team will demon- the nation. We therefore are askingstrate whether wave power will be that you send black-and-white photo-practical in the near future for graphs and information on your prog-electrical power generation. ress to us for publication in the

All the teams that we talked to Newsletter.plan to have their design proposals in So, if you want free publicity foralmost on time. The Coordinating yourself and your project to be dis-

Committee hopes that many more will tributed internationally to other col-arrive in the next few weeks. Good leges and universities, send us yourluck to all the hard-working teams. information.

1. - SCORE, ERA Il Coordinating Committee Department of Mechanical Engineering' ' Washington State Universityqi- Pullman, Washington 99163

162

*ME

STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON RELEVANT ENGINEERING INC

'. ERA 11.-=WS LE ITER

Volume 4, Letter 5, August 1976

STAY ON IT, GUYS! Mike Bergey from the University ofOklahoma tells us that his team will

It's less than a year now until have their project built by December.the ERA II Final Test Event. Time is The rest of the time prior to thereally flying by. There are currently Final Test Event will be spent work-47 teams entered in the ERA II Compe- ing out the bugs. Knowing Mike, hetition, with two months left for teams will need all the time he can get.to enter. Hugo Kruesi, team captain for Rut-

gers, says his team will have someTeam Progress hardware early in the fall. At Rut-

Most teams are working right through gers they are also working hard on a

the summer. The photograph below fund-raising campaign.

indicates that the University of If you are considering enteringHouston's Wind team is quite far along the ERA II competition do it, the

in the development of their project. deadline is approaching fast.

i ,>r'=tr:Tr-7- 14'll'll/1 2·\/t -:·.I \4 -' -3-1/NIE.4.9." 1 SCORE GRANTS ISSUED;1 ,\29*.12 l--loilimfillilill'll, 1WLA VA-/·=1.=.11 FUNDING EXPLAINEDZitri.LI:killi.lemiW I'le,G,ill:"Ilivililillili I As many of you know, the initial. 179.2' 1•JITE,/:/b"Elfillimillipillillil"liti round o f SCORE grants has been i ssued.

*The proposals were evaluated by a

tr/E.,- ··-.·'„ dz,« -4 group of highly competent engineersIr--··-e*L ..p·Av-l,4,3.9--rm. from the Richland, Washington area. A

m 'D.nz&*i 91*Lqk=0:*I brief summary of the comments made by

I.=-'*„ 10 h--81//1/il the evaluators was sent to teams,

1//Re- 3 + 1, ... r»'

along with a monetary determination.The initial grants averaged just under

11,8- .....11J 1 - . 1L 1., - $1,000 per team The next round willMwili,4 11.mub-6 3,·1, • probably take place in the fall

A "AMO: Amim' 8 1 .---• >W! In addition to proposal evaluations,

,crt"j'll - 1 11.ach team..as sent.,und-rats'·g,--A FF1 guide. SCORE expects all teams toJ L procure as much in the way of equip- l - Ju ment and funds from other sources as

possible. In general, SCORE will notprovide full funding for projects. Inthe near future we will provide teams

Left to right: Dave Bilberry, with a fund-raising update which willAnthony Richard, Prof. Art Paul, provide useful information to aid inand Don Laird assembling air- gaining equipment and funds. Also itbrakes on Houston's windmill. is important that you allow plenty of

163

time for a response from potential

contributors. Lag time, especially SYMPOSIUM LOCATION SOUGHTfor monetary contributions, can bevery long. The Coordinating Committee is look-

For those receiving grants from ing for a location to hold the nextSCORE, it is very important that an Symposium. A few universities haveaccurate accounting be kept of where already indicated an interest in hold-the money was spent. Also, you must ing this event on or near their cam-sign and return the agreement sent out puses. If there are any other univer-with the grant. Future grants are sities interested in reaping the bene-entirely dependent on performance of fits of such an event, please contactthese responsibilities. If you have the Coordinating Committee at Washing-any questions on either of these ton State University. Use the returnpoints, please contact the Coordinat- address on this newsletter or phoneing Committee or Mark Radtke. (509) 335-7070.

STILL ON SALE: RICH ASELTINE NAMED NEW

T-SHIRTS! SCORE VICE PRESIDENT

We announced in Newsletter No. 3that ERA II and SCORE T-shirts arebeing sold through the CoordinatingCommittee at Washington State Univer- *.sity. We can't imagine the possibil-

ity of anyone passing up the oppor-tunity of getting a T-shirt that says

SCORE on it. They make excellent 'gifts--to your

girlfriend, for instance. They can say so much that ./

can't (or shouldn't) be put intowords. Send us type, size, quantity, 1

„:al,·,ik:'th,acpahy„,„,ti:r,t:ef,rm b... 1 1 t'of a money order.

In addition to the

T-shirts, we now i - \ have for sale ERA I Final Reports.The Final Report is a 227-page, 8- by =r--- -- i .11-inch booklet which gives a detailedaccounting of the ERA I Competition. Also in SCORE news, SCORE has a newSo, if you participated in last year's Vice President. He is Rich Aseltine.ERA I Competition or are interested in Rich will be working with Mark Radtkealternative energy resource systems, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Heor just feel like spending some cash, recently received a B.S. in Electricalsend $5.00 to the return address on Engineering from the University ofthis newsletter and ask for an ERA I Tennessee. Rich gets off on scubaFinal Report. We'll be pleased to diving, laser beams and ripping offsend you a copy. pinatas.

164

two people, Joe Eschbach and DaleDO YOU HAVE A Wark. We are both keeping quite busy.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS? diminish the workload during fall and

Our goal is to accomplish enough to

With a new fall session beginning spring class sessions.soon, many will have new addresses. As for other members of the Commit-

We are making an effort to send mail tee, Jon Anson is in Bolivia sufferingto two addresses for each team. One from Montezuma's Revenge. He shouldset of information is being sent to return in September if he doesn't be-the faculty advisor and one set to the come a political prisoner. Dan Mason

team captain. If team captains are is working in Olympia, Washington at anot receiving information directly or supermarket, where he is running overif they have a change of address at little old ladies with shopping carts.

any time, please let us know. Along Kurt Bergmann is a blue-collar workerwith the team captain's address we (where the money is these days) at aneed a phone number. power plant on the west side of the

Faculty advisors are sometimes hard state. And Dr. Stock, our advisor,to run down. Team members are even will be suffering through two weeks inharder. For that reason teams shculd the Virgin Islands soon, poor devil.

get a Departmental mail box to insurecommunication between their Advisorand themselves. ACKNQNLEnGEMENIE

COORDINATING COMMITTEE Washington State University Word Pro-Finally, we would like to thank the

KEEPING BUSY THIS SUMMER cessing Center for the job they do inmaking the material we send them look

During the summer the Coordinating so fine. We would truly be dead inCommittee has dwindled down to just the water without them.

a,- SCORE, ERA Il Coordinating Committee Department of Mechanical Engineering' 7 Washington State University Pullman, Washington 99163

165

*(RE STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON RELEVANT ENGINEERING INC

,- ERA 11N =W LEITER

Vol. 4, Letter 6, November 1976

SECOND ERA II SYMPOSIUM FINAL TEST EVENT

SITE ANNOUNCED For those teams waiting to travelto Cape Cod for the Final Test Event

The Second SCORE/ERA II Symposium (FTE) -- sorry to disappoint you.will be held at the University of Maybe you can detour enroute and visitHouston in Houston, Texas, on Friday Yellowstone. For now, start mappingand Saturday, February 4 and 5, 1977. your course to the Pacific NorthwestThe team captains chose Texas as the and the city of desert sun and watermost preferred locatiop for. the Sympo- fun -- Richland, Washington. Don'tsium in their responses to our ques- stay at the Tetons too long; you needtionaire. to arrive by June 9 and plan on stay-We hope to see at least one member ing through June 16, 1977 (tentativeof each team at the Symposium. This FTE dates). After June 16th,you mightwill be an excellent time to meet want to work off some steam by climb-people from other teams, to discuss ing Mt. Ranier before starting totechniques of fundraising, ideas and drive home.types of projects, problems encoun- Richland, probably best known as atered and how these problems have been national center for the development ofdealt with. This will also give you a nuclear energy, is one of the largestchance to meet the Coordinating Com- engineering-based communities.in themittee in person which will make later nation. It is the home of such cor-discussions on the phone easier for porations as Exxon Nuclear, Westing-both groups. house Hanford, the Battelle Memorial

The February Symposium will cover a Institute Northwest Labs, Washingtonwide variety of topics having to do Public Power Supply System, Unitedwith the development of alternative Nuclear Industries, and the Jointenergy resource projects. There will Center for Graduate Study (operated byalso be discussions about problems Washington State University, the Uni-teams are encountering in the develop- versity of Washington, and Oregonment of their projects, the Final Test State University). These groups areEvent and scoring of projects... so be conducting extensive research andthere! development in the areas of solar-

Near the end of December, preregis- heated and cooled commercial buildings,tration forms including the program wind, geothermal, fossil fuels, nu-will be sent to all who receive our clear breeder reactors, commercialnewsletter. Although the Symposium fission reactors, and other energy-will be orientated toward the ERA II related fields.Competition, we welcome everyone who The FTE is being hosted by thehas an interest in alternative energy Energy Research and Development Admin-resources. istration Richland office (ERDA--RL),

166

and is supported by all the corpora- your team needs special consideration,tions in the area, including the Tri- please give the Coordinating CommitteeCities Engineering Council. Be sure a call.to bring some copies of your resumes,as the area corporations will be oper-

ating a job recruitment center nearthe test site. FUND RAISING

The test site provides all the

space you will need and equipment such If you haven't started a fundas small cranes and fork lifts are raising campaign, you had better startavailable to help unload and set up now. You should have a well-organizedyour projects. A liaison engineer fund raising proposal which describeswill be provided for each team to give all aspects of your efforts and bud-assistance in case any emergencies get. There are many teams which haveor problems should crop up. if you done an excellent job on their fundhave a special problem or requirement, raising effort, such as University ofplease let us know as soon as possible. Houston, California State University

Since weather is a prime concern at Long Beach, and West Seneca Eastfor the FTE -- team captains should Senior High School at West Seneca, Newreceive in the near future detailed York.

climatological data covering the last Rutgers University has pictures ofseveral years. For now -- the wind their team working, business cards,averages sixteen kph (10 mph) and the pamphlets and a very detailed reportaverage sblar incidence is 310 watts/ which they use during their fund-m2 (640 Langleys per day). raising. Their report consists of

Keep up the hard work -- see you in eight sections: 1. Abstract; 2. Intro-Richland. duction; 3. Objectives; 4. Experi-

mental Program; 5. Design Description;6. Budget; 7. Funding and GrantInformation; and 8. Appendix.

TEAM TRAVEL MONEY West Seneca has pictures and anexcellent proposal. Their proposal

Twenty-five percent of SCORE seed consists of a description of SCORE,money grants can now be used for team Project Abstract, System Diagram,travel to the Second ERA II Symposium Innovation, Budget, Input Specifica-and Final Test Event. Each team is tions, Economic Costs, System Integra-free to decide if it wants to use up tion, Proposal Evaluation Results, andto 25% of its' grant to cover travel a Grant Request. They have alreadycosts. Hewever, all team travel paid been given the free use of a rentalfor by a portion of the team grant truck, donated for transport of theirmust be strictly accounted for. project to the Final Test site.

The Coordinating Committee suggests You must go out into the communitythat each team assay its sources of and contact potential contributors.local funds very carefully. If it is Present your material to them in aeasy to get travel money, then save well-organized form and ask for theiryour team grant for materials; how- help and support. You not only wantever, if travel money is difficult to to find money, but also materials andcome by, then use up to 25% of the technical advice. Show them you'regrant for travel, second, canvass serious, enthusiastic, and determinedlocal sources for cash and material to make your project a success. Usedonations. In early spring, a special your Fund Raising Guide to help youteam travel grant will be issued to prepare a good proposal.partially cover the cost of travel to There are companies which havethe Final Test Event. If you feel funds which are used for supporting

167

local programs like your ERA II proj- for their Savonius rotors and had the ect· Don't pass them up! design checked by a local engineeringWe are pleased with the fund rais- firm with only a minor change in a

ing activities of some of the teams cross member length. They have plant-and hope that the other teams will ed, harvested, crushed, and are nowfollow their lead. Good luck in the fermenting and distilling sorghum tofuture and let us know how your ef- produce the raw ethanol fuel for theirforts are paying off. internal combustion engine.

Teams seem to be progressing verywell; keep up the good work. TheCoordinating Committee will be in

TEAM PROGRESS contact with you shortly for themonthly reports.

Team #058, Ocean Power team forStevens Institute of Technology, isdeveloping a method for the extractionof energy from the waves on the New SECOND ERA II ADVISORYEngland coast. Bob Schwalbenberg,team captain, says that they are BOARD MEETING 1presently modifying the design of acontouring raft. The team is testing The Second ERA II Advisory Boarda 3 ft by 3 ft scale model to deter- meeting was held on October 22, 1976mine the optimum dimensions for the at the American Society of Engineering

raft. Bob's team is also developing a Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Themathematical model to predict the Board met with:motion of the raft.

Milton Michailidis, team captain of Mark Radtke, Outgoing President of

California State University at LongSCORE;

Beach, Solar Team #067, says that Rich Aseltine, Incoming Presi dent oftheir progress to date is excellent. SCORE;They have launched a strong publicity

John Sununu, Chairman of the SCORE;campaign producing a small workingmodel of their system for media and Board of Directors;public display. They have receivedtwo large donations, one of aluminum and the Coordinating Committee.

for their mirror bank structure, andthe other of fiberglass cloth for - Dr. David Stock, Chairman of thetheir parabolic trough mirrors. Advisory Board, conducted the meeting.Milton says that the team is using an Dan Mason, Accountant for the Com-

intricate technique in constructing mittee, presented a short financialthe troughs from molds and-that the report on the average monthly expenses

actual mold work will begin soon. incurred by the Committee. Dale Wark,They have also constructed the first Symposia Coordinator for the Com-

of the ten units of the mirror bank mittee, announced that the Second

support structure and expect to have ERA II Symposium will be held at thethe total structure completed soon. University of Houston (Texas) on

Friday and Saturday, February 4 and 5,Milton projects that their solarsystem will be 80% completed by mid- 1977. Dale briefly outlined plans for

January, 1977. the two-day event. In addition, Dale

Reginald Moore, team captain of the solicited suggestions from the Advi-sory Board for speakers at the Symposi-Kansas State University, Wind Team

#106, says that progress on their wind um. Jon Anson, Final Test Event

collection system is proceeding very Coordinator for the Committee, led adiscussion to choose the Final Testwell. They have designed the tower

168

Event site for the ERA II Competition. # 37-Oklahoma State TechnicalThe group decided that the best loca- Institutetion would be the ERDA-Hanford labora-tories at Richland, WA. At the con- # 52-University of Illinois @ Urbanaclusion of the meeting, Rich Aseltineassumed the Presidency of SCORE, since # 55-Los Angeles Pierce CollegeMark Radtke is retiring from SCORE tofind fame and fortune in the real #103-University of Ohio @ Athensworld of business.

Overall, the Second Advisory Board #109-University of Indiana @meeting was very successful. The EvansvilleCommittee sought and received the helpthat will be needed to insure the #130-University of Florida @continued efficient and successful Gainesvilleoperation of the ERA II competition.

#139-Syracuse University

#157-University of Florida @MEMORANDUM AND Gainsville

PATENT AGREEMENTS #160-University of Florida @Gainsville

It is very important that each teamsend in its Memorandum and Patent Get these agreements in now toAgreement (M & P) in order to receive reduce your waiting time for money.seed money grants from SCORE. The If there are any questions or prob-SCORE corporate offices at MIT cannot lems, please give the Coordinatingsend seed money to a team until SCORE Committee a call at (509) 335-7070.has received the completed agreements.Although the first round of seed moneygrants were issued at the same time asthe agreements, the SCORE office has SPECIAL NOTE:changed this policy. The SCORE/MIToffice will now send the seed money The mailing address of SCORE/MITgrant check to a team only after it has changed, please direct all mailhas received the M&P Agreement form. concerning grants and agreements to:If a team already has its first check,

and has not sent in the agreements, no Rich Aseltine, Presidentfurther checks will be issued until SCOREthese agreements are sent to SHRETMIT. Room 9-220, MITTefollowing teams will not be re- Cambridge, MA 02139ceiving additional money until theagreements are sent to SCORE/MIT:

# 10-University of Houston ERRATA

# 16-University of Houston For those who have received ourreport on the First ERA II Symposium,

# 22-Rensselaer Polytechnic there is an error on page 25, 12 linesInstitute from the bottom of the page. By

"Thermal Storage" it reads "Highly# 28-University of Wisconsin @ efficient"; it should read "Not highly

Green Bay efficient".

# 34-University of West Virginia

169

3009/ STUDENT COMPETITIONS

ON RELEVANT ENGINEERING INC |

4.: ERA 11NEW LETTER

Vol. 4, Letter 7-April 1977

4 'j·'1' lut.i@ Presentations at the symposium included talks on pro-;:„.&" ject management, innovation, generators and the Final Test

Event. In addition, problem solving workshops on solarenergy, coal, wind energy, methane producers and energyStorage were held.

On Friday evening, in relaxed atmosphere completewith barbecued ribs and beer, participants exchanged a greatamount of information with the other teams, the speakersand the Coordinating Committee.

... The symposium report is being written and will be in

print by late March. Each team and those associated withDr. R.D. Chenoweth explaining how to match a generator to asystem

the symposium will receive a copy o f the report. Dale addedthat anyone who does not fall into those groups, but wouldlike a copy, should request it in writing to the return addressHouston Symposiumon this newsletter, and one will be sent free of charge.

Over 110 student and faculty from universities across. - .-...

the United States attended the second ERA II symposium at 1 ..r,9,6 4' jthe University of Houston at Houston, Texas, according to ; 4 'fSymposia Coordinator Dale Wark.

f te: + 4.L

4.. El,Dale says the symposium of Feb. 4-5 accomplishedthree major objectives: 1) reiterating ERA II objectives, 2)assisting teams in solving technical problems and 3) explain-ing the ERA II Final Test Event.

131**

·i,1 *Er/4J.. An,nn of the Coordinating Committee and Gerry Kins, TeamCaptain for Illinois tnstituie of T:chrloiogy, tk:4,11 i ivvi A wublem

Dale also wanted to say, "On behalf of the ERA II

.

Coordinating Committee, I wish to thank the University ofHouston for the use of their fine facilities and the hard workof persons associated with the university in

conjunction with the symposium. We also sincerely appreciated the time andSymposium participants enjoy Friday dinner of ribs and beer knowledge shared by our fine speakers.

"

170

Final Test Event Schedule of Events Jon says arrangements for computer testing and scoringof the projects is underway and "the judges and equipment

The following is a tentative schedule for the Final Test are starting to line-up."Event (FTE) at Richland, WA:

The Tri-Cities Technical Council, a consortium of overThursday, June 9-Check-in, project set-up 20 professional societies, has invited the teams to stay inFriday, June 10-Check-in, project set-up, kick-off barbecue private homes near the Final Test Site (FTS). "Hopefully,"Saturday, June 11-Project set-up, judge orientation Jon says, "this homestay family will be the same person asSunday, June 12-24 hr. testing, judging your liason engineer."Monday, June 13-Rework projects, judging, toursTuesday, June 14-24 hr. testing (optional), judging, tours Each team's liason engineer, will be "a person who

Wednesday, June 15-Public open house, awards banquet knows the local area, what to do for entertainment and,Thursday, June 16-Pack-up and go home more importantly, can give you technical help and find

technical services for a team's project if emergencies arise."

-Teams were told at the Feb. 4-5 symposium that notelephone poles would be available for wind projects at the Jon says the home will be chosen as close to the FTSFinal Test Site. The Coordinating Committee is checking as possible so that teams will not be spread out any moreinto this matter again and a definite answer will be released than necessary.

later.

Team members should bring their sleeping bags, for-Tours of the many different energy and environ- some will be sleeping on the floor or on the cots, etc., that

mental facilities plus research projects will be conducted for members bring.interested teams on June 13 and 14 at the FTE.

'*The homes," Jon says, " are not required to providemeals." He says "simple" breakfasts and "hearty" lunchesThe Richland office of U.S.-ERDA is hosting the FTE will be provided at the FTS as well as the Kick-off barbecuein cooperation with the following hidustrial and educational and the Awards Banquet. "All other dinners will be thein st i tu t ions Battelle-Northwest, Westinghouse Hanford, team's responsibility."United Nuclear Industries, Joint Center for Graduate Study,

City of Richland, Washington Public Power Supply System Families and friends of the team members are invitedand U.S.-ERDA. These organizations in addition to others to attend the Final Test Event but homestays will not bewill be interviewing at the FTE site. (This will be an ex-

provided for the non-participants unless special arrangementscellent opportunity for those seeking future employment.)are made ahead of time with the Coordinating Committee.

-In fulfilling team requests, the Coordinating Com-Campgrounds, he says, are available and a block of

mittee is planning to have a cherry picker, a forklift, power motel rooms have been reserved at reduced rates for non-ind water at each site where needed, computer analysis of participants and teams who wish them but that they are atprojects, a weather station and drinking water at the FTE the person's own expense.site.

The ground at the FTE site iS a Closely dropped grass

in a sandy soil. Holes may he dug to anchor projects, butthey must be filled in before leaving. Sorry, no permanentconcrete can be installed.

Final Test Event Information

"Great things are happening in the planning of the e----»r-Final Test Event at Richland, Wa.," says Coordinating Com-mittee member Jon Anson. AA

"The local companies, schools, government organiza- Team 79 from MIT with its 200 square foot test pond, Members are,tions and ERDA (Energy Research and Development Admin- left to right, Mike Anciqux, Pat Brown, Tom Davidson, Vivekistration) are giving us strong support." Ranadive, Bitle Battye, Tony Pelham

2

171

A questionnaire will be mailed out soon to each team 1 -99in an effort to provide the services and equipment a teammay require. Jon asks that teams fill it out in as much detailas possible and return it as soon as possible to the Coordi-nating Committee.

"If these questionnaires are not returned to us fast,"Jon says, "we may not have what you need or the quantity 111,1 4of what you want at the FTE."

Money

REMINDER TO ALL TEAMS: Additional funding isavailable for those teams that need it. Teams who want thismoney will have to send the information requested below toThe ERA II Coordinating Committee before March 11, David Gierke, Faculty Advisor for WASP team and team member Jim1977. Based on that information, the additional money will Capece, with the solar portion of their project.

be sent to the teams with the most need.

Also, this information from the teams will update the To accomplish the task of publicity and fund-raising,Committee's files so they can keep within the standards of the M.S.U. team says two of its members, Helen Burt andSCORE. This information is required from all teams. David Parker, have made several radio and television inter-

views and a series of public appearances before service orga-The Committee would like an itemized budget of the nizations. David discusses the SCORE competition, while

following: Helen talks about the technical aspects of their project.

1. Materials obtained to date: As a result of their efforts, the M.S.U. team says it hasa. Obtained with SCORE money received cash donations totaling $300 and several hardwareb. Obtained with donated money contributions.c. Materials donated

2. Materials to be obtained In order to solve some of the technical difficulties of3. Cash donations not including travel funds their project, the M.S.U. team says it is first building a scale4. Travel donations: model of their modified Minto Wheel before building the

a. Cash full-size model. They also take the scale model along whenb. Vehicles explaining their project to a group and say it has turned out

to be a good fund-raiser. The team plans to have the fullAdditional travel money will be sent to all teams design ready in May.

before the Final Test Event only if all SCORE requirementshave been rnet. The team at West Seneca East Senior High School with

State University College at Buffalo, N.Y., is designing andconstructing an "integrated system of wind and solar com-ponents." They call their team WASP (Wind and Solar

Projects Progressing Power).

Teams in the ERA II Competition are now in the In the wind powered portion of their project, thehome stretch after many months of hard work. The follow- WASP team says it has designed a spoked-wheel wind turbineing describes how a few of the teams are dealing with their which will be light weight, portable and an efficient systempresent problems, modifying their project designs and gener- component. Recently, the team changed from an 8 ft. to aally making progress towards the completion of their pro- 12 ft. diameter wind turbine in the hopes of obtaining 2 KWjects: at 20 mph with the 12 ft. turbine rather than the lower

output of the 8 ft. turbine.The team at Midwestern State University says the suc-

cess of its solar energy project depends upon publicity and Another team, this one at Illinois Institute of Tech-fund-raising, coupled with technical developement. nology (IIT), is developing a solar-powered/jet-generator.

3

172

After submitting their design proposal, the lIT team Performance scoring was reviewed by Joe. it remains

says it split up into four subgroups: Solar Collectors, Heat essentially unchanged as outlined in Newsletter No. 4, MayTransfer, Heat Engine, and Electrical Generation and Stor- 1976.

age. Each group is responsible for completing the design of Joe says to make sure that all teams are using the sameits assigned subsystem. cost of materials data to insure fair scoring of all projects,

the Coordinating Committee is requiring that teams use: R.S.Iii order to coordinate the groups. the lIT team has MEANS Building Construction Cost Data 1976, as the stan-

created a management group consisting of the project leaders dard of cost data. He says if your engineering school doesfrom each of the subgroups. The project leaders assume the not have one available, the book can be purchased at theresponsibility for system integration, bi,dget determination, educational cost of $5 per copy (regularly $15) from:fund-raising, environmental impact assessment and communi-cations with the Coordinating Committee. R.S. Means Company

100 Construction PlazaliT says its management group has not eliminated all Duxbury, MA 02332

coordinating problems for the 16 member team bitt addedthat as a result of bringing in new members, their solar Iii addition, Joe says the Coordinating Committee ispi,wered/jet-generator system has undergone a series of writing a computer program, ERACC, which will calculate all"evolutionary steps." economics costs of a project for a team. He says this should

relieve some of the burden from the team, and insure uni-SCORING form cost calculations. A cost questionnaire will be issued to

every team in two months which will solicit cost data aboutJoe Eschbach, chairman of the Coordinating Commit- each project. Teams should return the cost data to the

tee, gave a brief talk at the symposium ati the scoring of Committee, which in tum will run through ERACC andteam projects at the Final Test Event. Joe reiterated the calculate all cost data for the teams, and return the resultsphilosophy of the Rules and Guidelines under each of the to the team.scoring topics: Innovation, Performance, Economics andMarketability Joe also reviewed the marketability topics in the Rules

and Guidelines at the symposium. Most important, he says,

Innovation, Joe says, will be broken into two cate- will be that each team will discuss each topic of market-

gories: 1. innovation of Concept- how innovative a team's ability with ERA II judges in a presentation/discussion ses-idea is for a component's operation or design (This category, sion at the FTE. The presentation will also be the team's

is not influenced by the sliccess of component fabrication) chance to explain and emphasize details of its project which

and 2. Innovation of design/fabrication or modification-how would otherwise be overlooked by the judges iii the scoring

clever a teutii is in getting a componetit constected from of projects. He says teams will be free to use whatever visual

scratch or modified from commercial parts. In Storage Intio- aids and format it desires.

vation, Joe says, a team that uses electrical batteries com- Complete details on ERA Il SCORING will be forth-merci:lily available will not receive inliovation points whereas coming in the SCORING REPORT issued on April 1,1977.a team ilsing any other means of storage will be awarded Along with this report, he says, will be the cost question-innovation in storage points. naire for each team to fill out and return to the Committee.

1.,- SCORE, ERA Il Coordinating Committee

B Department of Mechanical Enginee,ing

' 7- Washington State Universityf Pullman, Washington 99163

4

1

173

3008/ STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON


'. ERA I INEW LETTER

Vol. 4, Letter 8-June 1977

Final Test Event

The Final Test Event (FTE) for the ERA II Competition, scheduled for June 9-16, is rapidly approaching. There is ' -C/='r,.r -where the efforts of a year-and-a-half will be put to test.

The FTE Will take place at Richland, Washington, suncity of the Pacific Northwest and a major energy researchcenter for the United States. The people of Richland havegone all out in their efforts to insure the success of theFTE, including opening their homes to lodge teams.

The schedule for the event is shown below.

Thursday June 9: project set-up

Friday June 10: project set-up,Welcoming Barbecue Final Test Event Site in Richland, Washington.6 p.nl.

Saturday June 11: project set-upTeams will have three days to set-up and two opportunities

Sunday June 12: 24 hour testing of the electri- to test their projects. On June 15 there will be a publicCity producing performance open house, tours of energy development facilities for theof the projects running off teams and the Awards Banquet.the environmental conditionsat Richland, plus cost and The Coordinating Committee office at Washington Stateinnovation judging University has been a bee-hive of activity in the weeks

prior to the FTE. A bald spot on the Final Test EventMonday June 13: project rework, cost and Coordinator, Jon Anson's, head grows day by day. The

innovation judging scoring document, including a computer program to assist

Tuesday June 14: optional 24 hour testing, in the economic evaluation of the projects, has been

cost, marketability and written and sent to judges and teams.environmental judging

The SCORE Headquarters at the FTE will be in Room 120Wednesday June 15: public open house 9 a.m. of the Joint Center for Graduate Study, 100 Sprout Road,

to 5:30 p.m., Awards Richland, Washington 99352, (509) 943-0128.Banquet 7 p.m. at the iHanford House The SCORE Office at MIT has been busy arranging press

Thursday June 16: teams pack and leave for coverage for the FTE. Articles in several major news

nome sources have been arranged.

174

Grants The ERA 11 Final Report

The final round of grants for the ERA 11 Competition A Final Report will be prepared on the Energy Resourcehas been distributed. Need was the most important factor Alternatives 11 competition l'or divribittion this comingin this round and, in all but a few cases, team needs were t'all. Requests t'or the report should he made 10 SCORE,met. Room 9-220. MIT, Cambridge, AlA (12139.

Symposium Report

The first printing of the ERA 11 Symposium Report, whichlacks one presentation, was sent out several weeks ago toteams. When the last presentation is received a second Final Newdetterprinting will be sent to those who requested a copy, theBoard of Directors, team Faculty Advisors, and the A final newsletter t'or the ERA 11 C'oi,ipetition will beAdvisory Board. Others who would like a copy should issued in July with a report on the Final Test Event andsend their requests to the return address on this newsletter. information onthe next SC'ORE Compelitic,11.

- SCORE, ERA Il Coordinating Committee 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Washington State Universityhillman, Washington 99164Phone (509) 335-7070

8

175

*MESTUDENT COMPETITIONS ON RELEVANT ENGINEERING INC

ERA HNEW,LETrER

Vol. 4, Letter 9-July 1977

Liason Engineers, providing them with technical advice ifneeded and materials from company shops on short notice.

At the Award's Banquet on June 15, 1977, the excitement1 was high from the anticipation of the awards to be handed

, out, plus the knowledge that the week of steady work andlittle sleep was over.

Below is a list of Awards given out:First Place Grand Award: Kansas State University

i Second Place Grand Award: Univesity of OklahomaThird Place Grand Award: West Virginia UniversityGrand Innovation Award: University of Texas at AustinFirst Place Wind Division: University of Florida at GainesvilleSecond Place Wind Division: Southern Methodist University IThird Place Wind Division: Washington State UniversityThird Place Wind Division: University of Wisconsin at Stout

Second place Grand Award went to University of Okla- First Place Wind Innovation: University of Oklahomahoma's Modified Darrius Wind Turbine. Second Place Wind Innovation: University of Florida at

GainesvilleThird Place Wind Innovation: Washington State University

Final Test Event First Place Solar Division: Georgia Institute of TechnologySecond Place Solar Division: Midwestern State University

The week long challenge of setting up and testing projects Third Place Solar Division: Oregon State Universitydeveloped during the two year ERA II competition is over. Second 'Place Solar Innovation: Georgia Institue of TechnologyThirty teams from 22 universities and over 225 participants Third Place Solar Innovation: Midwestern State Univesitywere present at the Joint Center for Graduate Study in First Place Organic Division: Georgia Institute of TechnologyRichland, Washington to test their projects. The wind Second Place Organic Division: Washington State Universityprojects were mounted on home built towers or telephone Third Place Organic Division: University of Wisconsin at Madisonpoles, many of which were over 40 feet in the air. Unfor- First Place Organic Innovation: University of Wisconsin attunately, the wind did not cooperate as planned during the Madisontwo 24 hour performance testing periods. Two large gusts Second Place Organic Innovation: Washington State Universityof nearly 50 mph blew down two wind projects, while Third Place Organic Innovation: University of Wisconsin atduring the 24 hour test periods the wind hardly blew at all. Green BayNevertheless, the sun was out in full force helping the solar First Place Combined Systems Division: West

Seneca High projects show off. During the 24 hour testing, often the School-Buffalo State Universityonly sounds heard were coal, ethanol, and methane proj- Second Place Combined Systems Division: Oregon State Iects chugging away. Univesity

Third Place Combined Systems Division: University of Wisconsin The Final Test Event, hosted by the ERDA Richland at MilwaukeeOperations Office was such a success because of the tre-mendous support from the firms and people of the Tri- The Next CompetitionCities (Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco). The teamsstayed in local engineers own homes during the week long The next SCORE competition has the title of "Energyevent, and many of these engineers doubled as the team's Efficient Vehicles."

176

There is no limitation to the source of energy. Alternate It is an exciting job with lots of opportunities. Universitiessources of power such as electricity, coal, wood and and Colleges who are interested should contact:ethanol will be highly rewarded. The details of the nextcompetition can be obtained, when available, by contacting John Sununu, Room 105 Anderson Hall

John Sununu. Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155(617) 628-5000 Ext. 268

Apologies*U

The SCORE national office at MIT appologizes to the Uni-versity of Florida at Gainesville for their mistake innational newsrelease.

Florida was not listed as the first place winner in the Wind-f- Division Category. We extend congratulations to the Uni-

versity of Florida for their First Place Award.

New President of SCORE

Richard Aseltine, the President of SCORE, has resignedand will be leaving the office on July 15, 1977. TheSCORE president helps set overall policy and is responsible

Members of Oregon State University Concentrating Solar for national publicity and fund raising. A technical back-Collector team wiping down their reflecting surface. ground is helpful. Anyone interested in applying for the

position should contact John Sununu, address above.Volunteers For The Next Coordinating Committee

ERA II Final ReportThe next competition should be exciting. While the pre-liminary organization has been done, the Coordinating The Final Report for the ERA II competition is being com-Committee for the Competition has not yet been chosen. piled and written right now. The complete report docu-The Coordinating Committee can be located at any uni- menting all activities of the two year competition and theversity or college in the United States. They will be respon- team projects should be available from the nationalsible for the day to day affairs of the competition. Their SCORE office in the Fall of 1977. For more informationprinciple duties will include: writing the Rules and Guide- on the availability of the Final Report, codtact Johnlines, recruiting teams, and running the Final Test Event. Sununu.

a- SCORE, ERA 11 Coordinating Committee

Department of Mechanical Engineering

M-*' Washington State UniversityF Pullman, Washington 99164

Phone (509) 335·7070

9

177

APPENDIX FSCORE TEAM GRANTS

SCORE, Inc. made the grants listed costs and travel expenses associatedon the following page to teams par- with the Final Test Event held inticipating in the Energy Resource Richland, Washington. These SCOREAlternatives II Competition. This grants were seed-money awards indlist reflects grants awarded prior were not expected to cover the team'sto the Final Test Event and includes entire project costs. Contributionsunused funds that were returned at of cash, materials, and equipmentthe completion of the competition. from their university and localSCORE grant funds were used to help sponsors provided the balance ofpay for the project construction each team's support.

Team # Name of School Total Grant

10 University of Houston $2,08813 University of Houston 90016 University of Houston 1,94419 Washington State University 1,62522 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 3,04725 Amarillo College 1,67228 University of Wisconsin @ Green Bay 1,91931 Rutgers University 3,05734 West Virginia University 2,60137 Oklahoma State University Technic 1,92040 Christian Brothers College 1,75343 Southern Methodist University 2,32149 University of Pittsburgh @ Johnstown 1,80858 Stevens Institute of Technology 2,01064 University of Texas @ Austin 3,22367 California State U. @ Long Beach 2,15670 Washington State University 1,12576 West Seneca High School 2,54379 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2,05281 Georgia Institute of Technology 1,99084 Georgia Institute of Technology 2,03090 Georgia Institute of Technology 1,84593 Georgia Institute of Technology 1,88597 Midwestern State University 3,712

100 University of California @ Berkeley 2,694106 Kansas State University 2,084109 University of E*ansville 2,847112 University of Wisconsin @ Madison 2,802115 Illinois Institute of Technology 2,925121 University of Maryland 1,834124 University of Oklahoma 2,321127 University of Oklahoma 1,387130 University of Florida @ Gainesville 3,256133 University of Wisconsin @ Milwaukee 1,414136 University of Wisconsin @ Stout 1,470142 Oregon State University 2,333145 Clemson University 2,310151 Oregon State University 3,113154 University of Alabama @ Huntsville 1,579157 University of Florida @ Gainesville 1,920160 University of Florida @ Gainesville 1,920163 University of Alabama @ Tuscaloosa 2,194

$91,629

178

APPENDIX G

INNOVATION SCORING

Objective

The objective of evaluating all ERA II entrids on innova-

tion is to reward those projects exhibiting innovative engineer-ing. The history of alternative energy availability is extensive,and current technology can produce electricity from these sources.However, for alternate sources to become cost effective, break-throughs by innovative engineering must occur to reduce systemcosts and boost energy output.

Innovation Judges

ERA II innovation judges will be selected from the federalgovernment, industry, and education.

Innovation Abstract

A short abstract of a team's innovations must be availableat the team site of the Final Test Event. The abstract shouldidentify the team's innovations by: (1) describing the currentstate-of-the-art for similar commercially-available counterpartcomponents; (2) describing the team's goal for the innovativedesigns, i.e., smaller size, less weight, optimal performance,reduced costs, etc.; and (3) describing how successful the teamfeels their designs met the innovation goals. Twenty copies ofthe abstract should be available upon arrival at the site to bebound by the Committee for disbursement to judges prior to pro-ject review.

Student Innovation of Concept

It is intended that this section will reward teams whoexhibit innovative ideas in component concept. An innovative

idea is constituted by a new means of achieving a component'soperation when that means is unknown by current technology.The idea's success of execution as a finished component, or

performance, will not be considered. Cognizant of the team'sinnovation abstract, the judges' responses will range from 0to 13 points.

Fabrication and Modification

It is intended that this section will reward teams for

excellence in the execution of innovative ideas by the studentfabrication of student-designated parts, and the student modi-fication of commercially-available components. Excellence infabrication and modification is the successful transformation

179

of an innovative idea into operating hardware by clever designand fabrication, or the modification of commercial components.Cognizant of a team's innovation goal and innovative ideas,the judges' responses will range from 0 to 12 points. If ateam exhibits only original design and fabrication, or onlythe modification of commercial parts, the judges will evaluatethe appropriate sub-category for a possible 12-point maximum.If a team's project exhibits a portion of each sub-category,the judges will award a possible maximum of 12 points in viewof how well both sub-categories contribute to the innovationgoal.

Storage Innovation

If a team's optional energy storage system uses any meansof storage other than that used in the current technology exist-ing for electrical storage which is commercially available(batteries, for example), the system will receive innovationstorage points. The judges' responses will range from 0 to 5points.

PERFORMANCE SCORING

Objective

Since the ERA II Competition is an engineering design com-petition, it is imperative that the team's hardware performs toachieve the design objective. The design objective is to pro-duce single-phase AC or DC electricity at 110, 220, or 24 voltsin a variable range from 0 to 2.5 kw power by closely followingthe ERA II load curve. The performance scoring contributes upto 25% of a team's final score. The performance section isbroken into two main parts: (1) total output for 12.5% of afinal score; and (2) peaking output for the final 12.5% of thefinal score.

Load Curve

The ERA II load curve was constructed from an actualaverage of residential power consumption in the U. S. Theapproximate area underneath the load curve totals 34 kw hours.The purpose of using the realistically derived load curve isto correctly locate the time and magnitude of user demand.

Total Output Scoring

For 20 kw hours in a 24-hour period, a system will receive100% of the 12.5 points allocated to total output scoring. Addi-tional points will not be awarded for output in excess of 20 kwhours for the 24-hour period. 20 kw hours was chosen as theupper limit in power for maximum points because a currentchallenge to using alternate energy is to develop a system whichsupplements the utility power supply. Hence, less than the fullload curve is required to demonstrate a system's achievement ofdesign criteria for maximum total output points. Total output

180

will be scored on a linear scale. For 10 kw hours in a 24-hourperiod, the system will receive 50% of total output points,while for 0 kw hours in a 24-hour period, the system will re-ceive 0 points.

i Peaking Output Scoring

One of the very real benefits of an alternative energysystem is its usage as a peaking power source which will re-lieve much of the peaking burden from the utilities. Hence,ERA II projects will be tested for peak power capabilities.

1 The basis for peaking points is a system's ability to meet thepeaks in the ERA II load curve. The peaking area of the loadcurve is defined as the area of the load curvd bounded by the

1 times 6:30 to 22:30 hours, and above the 0.75 kw line. Thepeaking area contains 16 kw hours for a 24-hour period. Peak-ing power will be scored on a linear scale. Similar to theTotal Output Section, a team that produces 16 kw hours in thepeaking region will receive 100% of the peaking points. If ateam produces 8 kw hours in the peaking region, they will re-ceive 50% of peaking points, while a team that produces 0 kwhours in the peaking region will receive no points for peakingoutput.

Environmental Scaling Factor

The Coordinating Committee realizes that the input condi-tions for which a team is designing a project may not exactlyoccur on the Final Test Event test day or that damage may occurduring transit. At the Second Symposium, the Committee indicatedthat an "environmental scaling factor" was being considered.The scaling factor would scale the environmental conditionspresent at the Final Test Event to the team's design conditionsallowing a direct comparison of power outputs. After extensiveresearch,and consultation with alternate energy experts, it isapparent that an accurate scaling factor is not possible. Windturbines are designed to operate in a narrow band of wind.speeds .with changing efficiency at the different speeds, and solar sys-tem efficiency changes with solar incidence as the possible tem-perature difference changes. The result is that for 50 differentalternative energy systems, there is no scaling factor which canbe applied fairly and accurately to all.

If the environmental conditions at the Final Test Event donot meet a team's design environmental conditions, a team maypetition the Coordinating Committee to use the team's certifiedhome-site test results as performance data. The petitioningprocess will require that a team submit its home-site test dataand original design criteria environmental input data, as sentto the Coordinating Committee in the Design Proposal, to aspecial panel of judges who are familiar with environmentalconditions throughout the U. S. and the power capabilities ofalternative energy hardware. It will be the judges' duty todecide whether the home-site power output is realistic, giventhe environmental input. If a team designed its project for a

181

1/

region different than that used in the home-site test, it is the Team's responsibility to also provide the judges with a 'certified performance curve (input-vs-power output) for theirproject. The performance curve should show, given the home-site results and the environmental conditions at the design site, that the team's claimed power output is feasible at the 'design site. If the judges agree that the design output could |be achieved from the design input, the design output will besubstituted for the performance test results. If the judges

do not accept the home-site or design results, the performance scoring will be based upon results taken at the Final Test Event.

Testing Procedure

The performance testing will be conducted over a 24-hour iperiod. The electrical loading of systems during the 24-hour Iperiod will follow the ERA II load curve. The quantities thatwill be measured and recorded into the Final Test Event computerare:

(1) load voltage;(2) load current;(3) storage system voltage;(4) storage system current; and(5) auxiliary power input.

These quantities will be recorded throughout the 24-hourtest period at relatively short time intervals. The CoordinatingCommittee will measure these quantities by reading the instru-mentation installed on the project by the team, except for theauxiliary power, whose instrumentation will be provided at theFinal Test Event.

Auxiliary Power

The electrical output of a system shall be set up in sucha way that no power input to the system from an outside electri-cal source may be used to contribute to the electrical output ofthe alternative energy system directly. Auxiliary energy inputto power fans, etc., will be recorded on a watt-hour meter pro-vided by the city of Richland. At each reading during the 24hour test, the auxiliary power used will be deducted from theteam's power produced during that interval of the test.

Overload

If, during the test period, the system is overloaded (wherethe deviation in voltage is greater than +10% of the ERA IIaccepted values given in the Rules and Guidelines, the load onthe system will be reduced until acceptable voltage can be main-tained.

What the Teams Need to Bring to the Final Test Event

All teams must bring the following to the Final TestEvent:

182

(1) voltmeter to measure load voltage;(2) ammeter to measure load current;(3) voltmeter to measure storage system voltage;(4) ammeter to measure storage system current;(5) resistance loading device;(6) hard hat for every team member;(7) one clip-board to display test results; and(8) completed "Team Statistics" portion of Home-site

Testing Document.

If a team's storage system is different than electrical storage

in batteries, the team must come equipped with adequate instru-mentation to measure the energy dissipation of their storagesystem, i.e., thermometers, flowmeters, pressure gages, etc.The team should bring the necessary auxiliary equipment to cali-brate their instrumentation at the Final Test Event.

Since there are no industry standards to judge the .qualityof AC or DC power by frequency, ripple,.etc., no measurement of

output quality will be made.

Storage Systems

The storage system will be charged up to its normal fully

charged capacity prior to the test. Additional storage facili-

ties or components other than those incorporated in the systemwill not be used to store energy or to supply energy during thecourse of the test. The total power delivered by the storagesystem to the load will be deducted from the total output of thesystem at the end of the 24-hour test.

Instrumentation Calibration

All .i.nstrumentation should be calibrated before use at theFinal Test Event. The Coordinating Committee will be spot-check-ing instrument accuracy at the Final Test Event.

Resistive Loading Device

All teams will bring a resistive loading device to theFinal Test Event which can simulate the ERA II load curve for

power demand and durltion. The most probable supply for the

load devices will be a school's electrical'engineering depart-ment. If one cannot acquire a resistive device at school, onecan be built from common light bulbs. The reactance in a house-hold light bulb at low frequencies is minimal. A light bulbbank with a set of switches allows.one to vary the load insmall increments from 0 to 2.5 kw for fine tuning of the projectloading. Wiring diagrams for suggested loading devices for 110and 220 volts are shown in Figures A through E. For a 24-voltsystem, the number of light bulbs to handle the large currentsis prohibitive. Rather, one would want to use a loading device

from an electrical engineering department or a loading devicefrom a commercial battery maker. Reactive motor/generator loadsare not acceptable.

183

MARKETABILITY SCORING

Objective

The final evaluation of team projects occurs in themarketability presentation. The marketability score is 20%of a team's final score. The goal of the marketability pre-sentation is to allow each team to demonstrate to the judgeshow thoroughly the team has considered the very importantmarketability and environmental aspects of a project and howthe project has been designed to meet those considerations.

Marketability Judges

The marketability judges ·will represent a cross sectionof professionals from industry and government who are familiarwith component reliability, repair, environmental impact, andthe retailing of commercial products.

Procedure

Each team will have one hour to make their verbal presen-tation to a panel of marketability judges. The presentationshould demonstrate how thoroughly the teams considered and de-signed for the six marketability topics. The format of pre-sentation is unrestricted. A team may use any audio-visualmaterial which they deem desirable and effective to make theirpoints. A team should expect to field judges' questions andshould plan their time accordingly. The six marketabilitytopics and the information which the judges will be looking forare:

(1) Potential Market: How many of the team's units can· be sold per year in their market and market location?

(2) Maintenance Schedule: Is the schedule desirable incomplexity and frequency to insure predictability of the sys-tem's operation?

(3) Durability: Will the project operate with scheduledmaintenance for the 20-year economic life of the system?

(4) Simplicity: Does the·system's design allow malfunc-tions to be traced and repaired?

(5) Safety: Have adequate precautions been.taken to pre-vent the system from "run-away" operation in severe environ-mental cbnditions? Have safety precautions been taken to pro-tect the owner of the system from mishap during operation?

(6) Environmental Impact: Have the effluents of systemoperation been satisfactorily taken care of?

Scoring Responses

All six marketability categories are equally weighed.After the team's presentation, the judges will assign a singlescore out of a maximum of 20 possible points.

184

ECONOMICS SCORING

Objective

The intent of the economics scoring section is to evaluatethe economic feasibility of all ERA II alternate energy systemsby a standardized method. The acceptance of alternate energysystems in the marketplace will depend upon its socio-economicCosts. The Coordinating Committee has developed a computercode, ERACC, to evaluate all of the ERA II project economics.The Exotic Materials Report, Project Job Costs Report, and theNet Energy Report must all be completed and returned to theCoordinating Committee by May 28, 1977 for uniform evaluation.The economics scoring will evaluate all ERA II projects inthree important socio-economic categories: (1) Busbar Electri-city Cost; (2) Net Energy Accounting; and (3) Exotic MaterialsRequirements. The distribution of points among the categoriesare divided as follows: 12.5 points allocated to Busbar Elec-tricity Costs, 7.5 points to Net Energy Accounting, and 5 pointsto Exotic Material Requirements.

I. Exotic Materials Requirements

Objective: "Since energy is fundamental, energyproduction must have first call on materials" (2). The intentof this section is to identify those mass-produced alternateenergy systems whose material requirements will seriously.strainthe U. S. production of key exotic materials.

Procedure: Using several references -- (1), (2), and(3) -- a list of exotic materials used in alternate energy sys-tems was compiled. Each team will fill out the Exotic MaterialsReport for their project. The report must indicate how much, ifany, of each material is used iii the project. The units of thereport are in kg of material per project. The potential annualcommercial market for the project should also be recorded. (thesame as in the Marketability "Potential Market" topic) . Since

energy independence is the nation's goal, the total demand forthe energy-reldted materials must be ju4ged in terms of domesticproduction. From the annual market prediction and materialsusage per project based on a project that produces 20 kw hr/24hours, an annual total use of the key materials can be calculated.The annual total usage will then be compared to the U. S. 1976annual production of each material. If no material use islarger than 2% of the annual U.S. production, then the projectwill receive 5 points (4). If any material use is larger than2% of the annual U. S. production, then the project will rdceive0 points for the Exotic Materials section of the Economic Scoring.

. 185

Exotic Materials Annual Production (3)

Aluminum 3.811 x 109 kgSteel 1.162 x 1011 kgCopper 1.388 x 10' kgCement/Concrete 6.679 x 10 kg

10

Silicon 4.90 x 108 kgCadmium 1.996 x 100 kgGallium 2000 kgArsenic 5.445 x 106 kgTellurium 5.942 x 105 kgSelenium 1.842 x 108 kgFiberglass-Resin (1) 2.632 x 10 kg

Scoring Responses:

(1) If an annual demand for any material exceeds 2%of the annual U. S. production, the project will receive 0 pointsfor the Exotic Materials section of the Economics Scoring.

(2) If a project's material requirements never exceed 2% of any of the listed materials, then 5 points will be recordedfor the Exotic Materials section of the Economics Scoring.

II. Net Energy Analysis

Objective: By mandate from the federal government,all'alternate energy projects must be evaluated for net energyproduction.

Federal Non-Nuclear Energy Research and DevelopmentAct, 1974, Section 5 (a) 5 states: "The potential for produc-tion of net energy by the proposed technology at the stage ofcommercial application shall be analyzed and considered in eval-uating proposals."

The intent .of this section is to evaluate the netenergy-producing capabilities of the ERA II alternate energysystems. This section counts for 7.5 points of a team's totalscore.

Procedure: For every material, component, etc., usedon an alternate energy system, special coefficients have beendevised which indicate the energy content embodied in each por-tion of the project. For example, the steel coefficient showshow much coal, petroleum, gas, and electrical energy was usedin the mining, refining, transporting, and fabricating of onedollar of finished steel ready for consumption. If everymaterial and commodity used on a project are multiplied by theenergy coefficients and then summed, a total energy cost of theproject is calculated.

The annual energy production of a system is taken asenergy revenue. One can then solve for the years that will berequired of energy production for the system to pay back the

186 ·

energy required to build the system. At this point, the netenergy balance is zero: Cost = Revenue.

Considering energy consumed now to produce analternate energy system, as an investment, one expects afavorable return on that investment in the future. Using amodest interest rate of 6%, the doubling time of an invest-ment is about 12 years or an investment of one energy unitnow should pay back two energy units in 12 years.

For ERA II, each team must complete the Net EnergyReport indicating how many 1976 dollars of each material orcomponent are contained in their system. The Net Energy Reportlists 45 materials and components commonly found in alternateenergy systems. The Net Energy Report must then be returnedto the Coordinating Committee by May 28, 1977 for standardizedevaluation in ERACC. ERACC uses energy coefficients calculatedby Bullard et al (5), for the 45 categories which indicate howmany watts of oil, coal, natural gas, and electricity areembodied in each 1976 dollar of the commodity. The coal, oil,and natural gas coefficients were converted to an electricalequivalent using thermal efficiency of 35%. A total amount ofelectrical energy per dollar per category is then calculated.Using the team's indicated use of the materials and commodities,an energy cost per project can be calculated.

Given the annual energy production of the system, thetime period required to double energy revenue compared to energycost for a 6% interest rate is then calculated. Based on thistime period, different scoring responses will be made.

Scoring Responses:

(1) If energy payback doubling time is .LE. 12 years:7.5 points.

(2) If energy payback doubling time is .LT.18.but.GT.12:1.9 points.

(3) If energy payback doubling time is .GT. 20 years:0 points.

III. Busbar Cost of Electricity

Objective: The role of alternate energy in the market-place will be determined by the relative cost of power generatedby the alternate energy system. The intent of this section isto estimate the mass-produced system's Busbar Cost of Electricityto the consumer from an ERA II project.

Procedure: Using the computer code, ERACC, the con-struction of any system is broken down into a line of sequentialjobs. At each job, the material and labor costs for that jobare entered into the cash flow. As the system proceeds downthe assembly line, the material and« labor costs are automaticallyadded (see figure 1). At the end of the assembly line, the sub-totals of material and labor costs for a system are availablefrom the continuously added sums.

187

AaboA RaboA

Time 7 l Time j

<Labor <Labor)

1 "3) G4'1 <R.,9 %W<0 < <

n+3 n+2 n+1

By learning curve analysis, the labor costs of amass-produced system are 0.25 of the prototype labor costs(6). Therefore, ERACC will reduce the subtotal labor costsof a project by 0.75 to calculate the project's total laborCosts. The material and total labor costs are then summedat the end of the assembly line for the total system cost.

To estimate the purchase cost of an alternate energysystem to the consumer, ERACC adds a manufacturer's overheadcost, a working capital cost, and a profit cost to the pre-viously calculated assembly line cost.

ERACC calculates the manufacturing overhead costsas a 125% surcharge applied to the total labor hours expendedon the project.

For a manufacturing process, materials and labor tiedup in partially-completed products represent real costs to theproducer. Money that could have been put in interest-bearinginvestments is instead invested in non-interest bearing pro-ducts. Hence, the income forgone by the investment, or thecost of money to fund the manufacturing process in materialsand payroll must be added to the cost of the final product.Given an annual working capital interest rate (i), and thefraction of a year that the time to complete one unit is (n),the cost of working capital is calculated by multiplying theassembly line cost of the system by the standard single pay-ment future value factor.

Cost of working capital = (Assembly line capital cost)*(i)n

ERACC uses a working capital rate of 10% which isrepresentative of the interest rate for a small manufacturer (2).

Since ERACC transforms the prototype cost of a pro-ject into a likely mass-produced cost, for an estimation ofthe profit rate, the routine assumes that equilibrium mass pro-duction runs have been accomplished. This voids the complexi-ties of determining a gross profit rate in view of start-upcosts, marketing costs, quality control costs, etc. For ERAII, a gross profit rate of 10% was chosen from current litera-ture (6).

188

Given a per unit profit rate based on the finalassembly line cost of the product, a simple profit multiplieris applied to the assembly line cost to appropriately boostthe cost of the final product.

Profit cost = (Assembly line cost)*(Profit rate per unit)

Then, the estimated purchase price of an alternateenergy system is:

Purchase price = Assembly line cost + Overhead cost + Workingcapital cost + Profit cost.

ERACC estimates the annual Busbar Cost of Electricityto the system owner by amortizing the purchase cost of thesystem and by adding the additional cost of insurance, taxes,operation, and maintenance.

By the standard application of the equal paymentseries capital recovery factor, the capital recovery factorindicates to the owner the amount of money that must be paidto purchase the total systam:

Capital recovery factor = (1. + i)n(i/[(1. + i)n -1])

where i = interest rate, and n = payback years, and the annualamortized costs are then calculated as:

Annual amortized system cost.= (System purchase cost)*(CapitalRecovery Factor)

For ERA II, an interest rate and payback period werechosen to represent the median between the two extremes ofautomobile versus household product financing. An interestrate of 10%and the payback period of 10 years are used. Atthe moment, this is the best estimate of the eventual amortiza-tion conditions which will apply to. an alternate energy systemin the near future.

Estimating the annual cost of insurance for the pro-tection of the total system as a small percentage (r) of thesystem purchase cost, the annual cost of insurance:

Annual insurance costs = r*(Purchase price of system + BatteryCost)

The annual insurance rate (r) is entered as input data. ForERA.II, the annual insurance rate of 0.1% is taken from currentliterature (6).

As an approximation to a system's annual operationand maintenance cost, it is accepted that a small percentagemultiplying factor of the capital cost adequately models theseimportant costs (6, 8, 9). Estimating the annual cost ofoperating and maintaining the total system as a small percen-

189

tage (p) of the system purchase cost, the annual cost ofoperation, and maintenance is:

Annual operation and maintenance cost = (p)*(Purchase cost)

For ERA ·II, the annual operation and maintenance cost rate is2% and is entered as input data (13).

Since an alternate energy system represents anaddition to the value of a household, one can anticipate ahigher tax assessment. Even though the tax structure is com-plex, one can estimate the annual cost of taxes for the totalsystem as a small percentage (q) of the system price plusbattery cost (13). The annual cost of taxes is then:

\Annual tax cost = (q)*(Purchase price + Battery cost)

For ERA II, the tax rate is 1.5% of the total system cost (6), 1

Electrit Energy Cost: Summing up the individualcost components -- annual amortized system cost, insurancecosts, operation and maintenance cost -- the result is atotal annual cost to the consumer of owning the completeenergy system. By entering the annual power output of thesystem in kw hours, and the load factor for the system (LF)as input data, the total annual cost of power to the consumeris calculated by:

Total system annual cost ($)Annual Busbar Cost of Electricity = Annual power (kw hrs.) *LF

The load factor (LF) indicates the amount of overlapbetween the alternate energy source and the residential elec-trical load.. The load factor is the fraction of energy deliveredto the load compared to the upper limit of energy that the sys-tem could produce at a given location.

Load factor = Average power outputRated power output

Each team must complete the Project Job Costs Report.The report is broken down into 30 individual jobs. Thus, ateam can consider the construction of their project as composedof 30 individual jobs. Examples of possible jobs may be:machining of cylinders for stirling engine, cutting of lumberfor supports, bending of tubing, assembly of collectors fromcomponent parts, etc. These only serve as examples. Thepossible list of jobs for an individual project goes on. Someaggregation of jobs may be necessary to reduce the total des-cription of the project to 30 individual jobs. At each job,the cost of materials used in the job should be indiciated indollars and cents. The prices for the materials must come fromthe R. S. Means Construction Cost Data Book, 1976 .to insure uni-form costs throughout all the projects. (Remember that thiswas stipulated in the #7 NEWSLETTER and at the Second Symposium.)These materials are like steel plate, 2 x 4 lumber, copper tub-

190

ing, etc. Tools are not included. r If a cost for a componentcannot be found in the R. S. Means book, then by permissionfrom the Coordinating Committee, a team may use another repre-sentative commercial price. In addition to materials, eachjob should indicate how many hours of labor are involved toaccomplish that job. Consulting the labor key at the bottomof the project costs report, the team should also indicatewhat type of labor was used by placing the number of thelabor title in the appropriate column. The recording ofmaterial cost, 1dbor time, and labor type should be done foreach of 30 job steps.

The completed Project Job Cost Report should be mailedback to the Coordinating Committee along with the Exotic

i Materials and Net Energy Report by May 28, 1977 for computationJnd scoring. A partial example of a completed job cost sheetis shown below.

Step Description Material Cost Labor Type Labor Time

14 Machine Collectors $ 50.00 1. 2 hours15 Drill Plate Holes .00 1. .5 "16 Install Pump 100.00 4. 2 "17 'Control Wiring 50.00 2. 8 "

etc. etc. etc. etc.

Scoring: Once all the team Project Job Costs Reportsare returned to the Coordinating Committee, the scoring of allpoints will range from 0 to 12.5 points based on the naturalbreaks in the distribution of team Busbar Electricity Costs.

Amendments and Additions to Scoring Document

(1) When completing the Project Job Costs Report, ateam should cost their project as it appears at the final testsite, not as one might think the project would appear when massproduced. The ERACC costing scheme already includes factorsto account for the cost reduction from the team's prototype toa mass-produced product. In estimating the labor. time for eachcomponent, the team-should report the time necessary to onlyfabricate and assemble the components. Do not include thedevelopment time.

(2) At the Final Test Event, each project will under-go a cost judging review. Professional cost estimators fromindustry will check each project's job cost information to veri-fy its accuracy. The cost judges will have the authority tochange any cost information that they feel is incorrect. Ifso, the economic calculations will be re-done and the project

191

re-scored using the corrected figures. The cost judges willreview the projects at the team's site at the final test site,with free exchange between team members and judges.

(3) In evaluating the project's "Durability" (seethe Marketability section of the Scoring Document), the market-ability judges may change the expected economic life of aproject. Initially, all projects are assumed to have a 20-yeareconomic life. If the judges adjust the figure based on projectdesign, construction, etc., the new adjusted figure will be usedin re-calculdtion of project economics along with the appropri-ate re-scoring.

(4) To insure that all projects are evaluated forExotic Material Requirements as systems producing the designcriteria output of 20 kw hours in a 24-hour period, the materialinputs of a project will be scaled to represent a system produc-ing 20 kw hours in a 24-hour period.

(5) Estimating the operation and maintenance costsof a system by a small percentage of a capital cost is not fineenough to judge the many ERA II projects. Instead, each teammust submit an individual figure indicating the annual cost ofthe project's operation and maintenance. This should includethe costs of fuel, auxiliary power to drive fans, and maintenancecosts, etc.

(6) To calculate the load factor, the rated poweroutput should be the annual power demanded by the portion of theERA II load curve used in scoring (20 kw hrs./24-hrs. or 7300kw hrs. per year). The average power output is the annualaverage power output of a team's project at its design location.

Therefore,

Average power outputLoad factor = 7300 kw-hrs.

The maximum load factor can only be 1.0. A load fac-tor greater than 1.0 indicates that the design driteria has notbeen met for power production since the system is oversized.If a team's load factor is greater than 1.0, for the purposeof calculations, the load factor will be truncated to 1.0.

(7) There was an error in the original ScoringDocument. The expression for the annual Busbar ElectricalCosts should have been:

Total system annual cost ($)Annual Busbar Cost of Electricity =LF x annual power output (kw-hrs)

192

REFERENCES

(1) Federal Energy Administration, "Project Independence-SolarEnergy Task Force Report," November 1974, National ScienceFoundation, Washington, D.C.

(2) "Demand and Supply of Non-fuel Minerals and Materials forthe United States Energy Industry, 1975-90--A PreliminaryReport," Geological Survey Professional Paper 1006A,B,United States Department of the Interior.

(3) Commodity Data Summaries 1977, Bureau of Mines, UnitedStates Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.

(4) Conversation with R. L. Watts, April 20, 1977, BattelleNorthwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

(5) Bullard, W. Clark; Penner, Peter S.; Pilati, David A. ,"Energy Use Handbook," CAC Technical Memo No. 214, October.1976, Center for Advanced Computation-University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.

(6) Coty, Ugo and Vaugh, Lou, "Effects of Initial ProductionQuantity and Incentives on the Cost of Wind Energy," Lock-heed California Co., January 3, 1977, Burbank, California.

(7) Conversation with loan officer, December 12, 1976, SeattleFirst National Bank, Pullman ,Branch.

(8) LeBoff, J. Peter, "Wind Power Feasibility," Energy Sources,Volume 2, Number 4, Crane & Russak Co., Inc.

(9) Obermeir, John Lee, "Wind - Electric Power Generation inMontana," M.S. Thesis, March 1976, Montana State University,Bozeman, Montana.

193

Project Job Costs Report

Team name:

Team number:

I. Job Costs Sheet

MATERIAL LABOR LABOR. STEP DESCRIPTION COSTS TYPE TIME

Limit description to 20

1. cllaracters maximum.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

·18.

19.

194

of Project Job Costs Report

MATERIAL LABOR LABORSTEP DESCRIPTION COSTS TYPE TIME

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

10..

Labor type key

1. Carpenter

2. Electrician

3. Machinist

4. Motorized equipment mechanic

5. Painter

6. Plumber/Steamfitter/Pipefitter

7. Heating/refrigeration mechanic

8. Sheet metal mechanic

9. W€lder

10. Assembly line labor

195

1-'

20'1

S C H E M A T I C A.

SYSTEM TESTING DIAGRAM

Watt Meter

Power ProjectGrid OutputW

Ammeter

/7 Resistive

VoltmeterLoadDummy

Ammeter

Voltmeter

1vStorageSystem

S C H E M A T I C B.

(110 Volt Light Bulb Loading Bank)

0 8BUSS

OUTPUT

0 0BUSS

1 1 5I I iCO 300 - 300 - 200 - 60

CO 390 - 300 - 100 - 60

CO 300 - 300 - 100 _ 25

[0 300 - 300 -

co 300

197

S C H E M A T I C C.

110 Volt Light Bulb Loadihg Bank

.

,

..

.rq.

..!J...

. A..LI

.

/

198

S C H E M A T I C D.

(220 Volt Light Bulb Loading Bank)

0 0-Ii-I---BUSS

OUTPUT

0 0=Il----BUSS

E a a 621 a.4 \-/ \J

CO 6-«' - 'a« I /Gu. ·-F \-3 C-1

CO A 6Pt .63'1 A.1»/ i-' i-I

300 - 6001-1- (1001./. X.C-j \-

CO .62)i-r•' \«·

'© (:I» Go-okC/ .-1

199

S C H E M A T I C E.

220 Volt Light Bulb Loading Bank

*

0 I

*.

*

*

200

' NET ENERGY REPORT

Team Name:

Team Number:

I. Please indicate the amount, in 1976 dollars, of eachmaterial or component used in your team's ERA II project.

1. Textile goods: 23. Zinc:

2. Veneer and plywood: 24. Aluminium:

3. Other assorted wood products: 25. Non-ferrous metal products:

4. Miscellaneous chemical products: 26. Heating/air conditioning system hardware:

5. Plastics: 27. Other hardware:

6. Paint products: 28. Pipe:

7. Tires: 29. Fabricated metal products:8. Leather: 30. Steam engine:9. Glass containers: 31. IC engine:

10. Cement: 32. Pump-compressor:11. Bricks: 33. Bearings:12. Ceramic tile: 34. Blowers:

13. Clay refractory: 35. Power transmission equipment:14. Plumbing fixtures: 36. Refrigeration equipment:15. Concrete products: 37. Electrical system instrumentation:16. Stone products: 38. Transformers:

17. Asbestos: 39. Switchgear:18. Gaskets: 40. Motors/generators:19. Non-clay refractory: 41. Electrical hardware:

20. Steel products: 42. Computers:21. Copper: 43. Batteries:

22. Lead: 44. Scientific instrumentation:45. Optical instrumentation:

II. What is the annual power output of the system in the

project's market: kwhrs.

201

II. Load Factor

The definition of the load factor is the fraction of energy delivered

to the load compared to the upper limit of energy that the system

could produce at the project's market.

Load Factor = Average power outputRated power output

III. Annual Power Output

The annual power output of our system at its market place is:

kwhrs.

202

EXOTIC MATERIALS REPORT

Team Name:

Team Number:

I. Please indicate, in kg, the amount of each material usedin the teams project:

Aluminium kgSteel kgCopper . kgCement/Concrete kgSilicon kgCadmium kgGallium kgArsenic kgTellurium kgSelenium kgFiberglass & Resin kg

II. How many units per year of the project do you estimatecan be sold in the project's market?

III. What is the annual power output of the system in theproject's market? kw hrs.

.

203

APPENDIX H

HOME-SITE TESTING DOCUMENT

May 1, 1977

I. Objective

This document provides all teams with a procedure to re-cord their project's performance during home-site testing. Inthe event of project damage during transportation to the finaltest event, or inclement weather during the final test event,this pdrformance data may be submitted as performance dataeligible for scoring in lieu of the data actually taken at thefinal test event. For more complete details on this process,please consult the scoring document, "Environmental ScalingFactor."

II. Testing Procedure

The test must be over one continuous 24-hour period. Therequested data must be recorded at successive 15-minute in-tervals.

If more than one alternate energy input is used (such aswind and solar), each input must be separatdly recorded.

The load voltage, the current, and the product (watts)must be recorded as shown. If, during the test, the system isoverloaded where the deviation in voltage is greater than 110%of the acceptable output voltages given in the Rules andGuidelines, the load on the system must be reduced until theacceptable voltage is maintained.

The resistive load used in the test must be variable soas to duplicate the load curve of power demand as shown in theRules and Guidelines.

If a system uses an alternate energy source which cannotbe tabulated under the categories given on the data chart, theteam must record similar data which shows the Committee howmuch energy is produced from the alternate energy source.

All auxiliary power used to drive pumps, blowers, etc.,whose origin is not from the team's project must be recordedas shown.

The test may begin with the storage system fully chargedUP. During the test, storage system voltage and current (+ forcharge; - for discharge)' must be recorded as shown. If elec-

204

trical storage by batteries is not used, the team must recordsimilar data which will tell the Committee how much energy isdelivered to and from the storage system to the main system.

Vital project statistics and system diagram must be re-corded under the "Team Statistics" section. All test resultsmust be certified by the team captain' s and faculty adVisor' ssignature.

A professional engineer not directly connected with the project must verify by his signature that the system producing

the submitted results is the same as the one diagrammed in"Team Statistics" and that correct instrumentation was used to

obtain the results.

All readings must be accurate to within to.1 of the unitrecorded.

205

TEAM STATISTICS

School Name and Number:

' Date:

I. General Characteristics

a. Type of alternate energy source:(If different than solar and wind, give details oncomposition, energy content, etc.)

b. Average % efficiency of energy conversion from alter-nate source to electricity:

c. If system has multiple alternate energy inputs (i.e.wind and solar), indicate average % of each source'scontribution to total output:

Wind %Solar %

Methane %Other (specify) %

d. On a separate sheet of 8.5" x 11" paper, draw aschematic of the operating system. The system com-ponents should be clearly marked with approximatesizes of each indicated. The schematic should alsoshow the type and placement of test instrumentationon the system.

Type of power output (AC or DC) voltagePhase

Frequency

II. General Characteristics

Type (model, manufacturer)

Type of power generated (AC or DC) voltage @ pf.Phase @ pf.

FrequencyKilovolt-amperes at power factor

Kilowatts at power factorVoltageCurrent

FrequencySpeed Rating

Number of phasesField amperesField volts

206

III. Converter Characteristics


Direct or invertedSingle or polyphase

Type of input (AC or DC) Volts

FrequencyPhase

i

Type of output (AC or DC) VoltsPhase

Frequency

IV. Storage Characteristics


Average % efficiency for conversion from alternate energysource to storage energy: %

Average % efficiency for conversion from storage energyto electrical energy: %

Battery type (lead-acid, nickel-iron, Ni-cad, etc.):

VoltageRating (amp-hrs)

Number used

V. Voltage Regulator Characteristics

Type (model, manufacturer, rating)

Team Captain's signature:

Faculty Advisor's signature:

Professional Engineer's signature and seal:

207

HOMESITE DATA CHART

TEAM:

DATE OF TEST: 'PLACE OF TEST:

STORAGE STORAGELOAD LOAD AUXILLARY SYSTEM SYSTEM

TIME WIND SOLAR LIQUID GAS VOLTAGE CURRENT POWER POWER VOLTAGE CURRENTHRS M/SEC. WATT/MT KG/SEC KG/SEC. VOLTS RMS AMPS : WATTS WATTS VOLTS RMS AMPS (110.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

(1) Please note a (+) for charging of the system;(-) for discharging of the system.

STORAGE STORAGELOAD LOAD AUXILLARY SYSTEM SYSTEM

TIME WIND SOLAR LIQUID GAS VOLTAGE CURRENT · POWER POWER VOLTAGE CURRENTHRS M/SEC. WATT/MT KG/SEC KG/SEC. VOLTS RMS AMPS WATTS WATTS VOLTS RMS AMPS (1:

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6.25

6.50

6.75

7.00

7.25

7.50

7.75

8.00

8.25

8.50

8.75

9.00

9.25

9.50

9.75

10.00

10.25

10.50

10.75

11.00

11.25

11.50

11.75

12t00

i

/

page 3STORAGE STORAGE

LOAD LOAD AUXILLARY SYSTEM SYSTEMTIME WIND SOLAR LIQUID GAS VOLTAGE CURRENT POWER POWER VOLTAGE CURRENTHRS M/SEC. WATT/MT KG/SEC KG/SEC. VOLTS RMS AMPS WATTS WATTS VOLTS RMS AMPS (1)

12.25

12.50

12.75

13.00

13.25

13.50

13.75

14.00

14.25

14.50

14.75

15.00

15.25

15.50

15.75

16.00

16.25

16.50

16.75

17.00

17.25

17.50

17.75

18.00

18.25

18.50

18.75

19.90 ,

,age 4 STORAGE STORAGELOAD LOAD AUXILLARY SYSTEM SYSTEM'

TIME WIND SOLAR LIQUID GAS VOLTAGE CURRENT POWER POWER VOLTAGE CURRENTHRS M/SEC. WATT/MT KG/SEC KG/SEC. VOLTS RMS AMPS WATTS WATTS VOLTS RMS AMPS (1,

19.25

19.50

19.75

20.00

20.25

20.50

20.75 4

21.00

21.25

21.50

21.75

22.00

22.25

22.50

.22.75

23.00

23.25

23.50

23.75

24.00

7I.

A

- 'i

APPENDIX I

Final Test Event Judges

Members of the Energy Resource Alternatives II CoordinatingCommittee and SCORE would like to thank the following persons forbeing judges at the ERA II Final Test Event. '

James Allen Farley GeorgeWashington Public Power Supply System VITRO Engineering, Inc.Richland, Washington Richland, Washington

Donald Anderson Fred Goldsbe.rryVITRO Engineering, Inc. ERDARichland, Washington Richland Operations Office

Larry Bowls Scott KellyWashington Public Power Supply System Battelle Northwest LaboratoriesRichland, Washington Richland, Washington

Donald Cockeram Harold LageAtomics International, Inc. Burns and Roe, Inc.Richland, Washington Richland, Washington

Jack Davis Milton Lewis. Burns and Roe, Inc. Columbia Engineers Services, Inc.

Richland, Washington Richland, Washington

John DeSteese Lonn LiffickBattelle Northwest Laboratories ERDARichland, Washington Richland Operations Office

Om Dhiman Jack MatsonBurns and Roe, Inc. University of HoustonRichland, Washington Houston, Texas

Herman Drees Jack ParksPinson Energy Corp. Helion, Inc.Marstons Mills, Massachusetts Brownsville, California

Erich Farber Dick PeraultUniversity of Florida Weyerhauser, Inc.Gainesville, Florida Tacoma, Washington

John Fox Jim PhoenixBattelle Northwest Laboratories ERDARichland, Washington Richland Operations Office

212

2

Lou PruesVITRO Engineering, Inc.Richland, Washington

William ReedBechtal CorporationRichland, Washington

Charles RipelyOlympic Engineering, Inc.Richland, Washington

Burton SellersTexaco Development Corp.New York, New York

Dave SquiresERDARichland Operations Office

Bernard StiefieldSandia LaboratoriesAlbequerque, New Mexico

Daniel UmanWashington Public Power Supply SystemRichland, Washington

Donald VargoNASAWashington, D.C.

Robert WilsonOregon State UniversityCorvallis, Oregon

Smokey YunickSmokey Yunick, Inc.Daytona Beach, Florida

213

APPENDIX J

Final Test Event Schedule

June 9: Project set-up.

June 10: Project set-up; Welcoming Barbeque, 6 p.m.

June 11: Project set-up.

June 12: 24-hour testing of the electricity-producingperformance of the projects running off theenvironmental conditions at Richland; cost,marketability and innovation judging; PUBLICOPEN HOUSE, 12 to 5 p.m.

June 13: Project rework; cost, innovation and market-ability judging.

June 14: Optional 24-hour testing; marketability andenviron0ental judging.

June 15: PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.; AwardsBanquet, 6:30 p.m. at the Hanford House.

June 16: Teams pack and leave for home.

214

i-d

APPENDIX K

1.

1

-

STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON RELEVANT ENGINEERING, INC.

' DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION

Dr. John H. Sununu College of EngineeringChairman of the Board Tufts University

Dr. Leroy S. Fletcher Chairman, Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Virginia

Dr. S. William Gouse Deputy Assistant Administrator-Fossil Energy

U.S. Energy Research & Develop-ment Administration

Dr. Wallace Honeywell Associate DeanCullen College of EngineeringUniversity of Houston

Dr. Richard Howe Manager of Public RelationsExxon Company, U. S. A.

Dr. Alfred H. Keil Dean, School of EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of

Technology

Dr. Ron Larson School of Electrical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of Technology

Dr. W. Robert Marshall Dean, College of EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin

Dr. Leonard Reiffel Chairman of the BoardInstructional Dynamics, Inc.

Dr. Thomas E. Stelson Vice President for ResearchGeorgia Institute of Technology

Dr. William R. Upthegrove Dean, School of EngineeringUniversity of Oklahoma

Mr. Ron Weaver Environmental Activj.ties StaffGeneral Motors Technical Center

Mr. James F. Young Vice President-Technical ResourcesGeneral Electric Company

215

\

APPENDIX L

,IrallJb Energy IAIW-17 Resource

W1 Alternatives Il7IL Competition STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON RELEVANT ENOlNEERING. INC

ERA 11 Team Fundraising Guide

To get your ERA II project from the design stage to the hardware

stage is going to require money. Possibly lots of money. SCORE

expects to be able to help by providing a "seed-money" grant, butin most cases the SCORE funds won't cover your entire project

Cost. This means that you'll have to raise the remaining funds

from local sources. What follows are some suggestions for projectfund raising that have proved successful in past SCORE competitions.

Team OrganizationA well-organized team effort will pay off in the design and con-struction of your project, and in your fund raising. Specifictasks assigned to specific people usually get done. It thereforemight be a good idea to have one person in charge of the fundraising effort. One of the educational aspects of participatingin SCORE competitions is learning how to ask people for money foran R &D project. Knowing how to do this is a valuable asset fora practicing engineer as well as an engineer in a managerial posi-tion. You might also consider getting a student from your businessschool to organize and run your fund raising. In any event, you'regoing to need money to build your project so approach your fundraising effort with the same seriousness you give to its design Iand construction.

The SCORE Grant

By submitting a Design Proposal to the SCORE ERA II CoordinatingCommittee, your team will be considered for a SCORE grant. As wementioned, these are "seed money" awards which mean they areinitial grants for your project expected to attract additional

216

:, -t

1 funding from other sources. The first major grant is usually the

hardest to get. Once you've received it, credibility is added to

your project and other potential sponsors are more willing to pro-

vide support.SCORE, Inc. was established to solve a related problem that arose

during the 1970 Clean Air Car Race (CACR). In addition to find-

ing local sponsors, all the CACR teams were approaching the same

federal agencies, national corporations and foundations for grants.

M ny of the national organizations were interested in funding

teams, but their granting systems weren't 'designed to make numeroussmall awards. They suggested that the national fund raising for

future competitionsbe centralized so that they could make asingle, large grant to the competition's organizer, and it inturn could make the individual team grants.SCORE was formed the following year to be this centralized nationalfund raising organization. During our first five years, SCORE hassponsored and conducted the 1971-72 Urban Vehicle Design Competi-tion, the 1973-74 Students Against Fire Competition, and the 1974-75Energy Resource Alternatives Competition, granting was over $240,000to competing teams.The SCORE team grants for ERA II will be awarded based on anevaluation of your team's Design Proposal and progress reports. Adescription of the information required in these documents is con-tained in the ERA II Rules and Guidelines. The constructiongrants will support the purchase of expendable materials andsupplies needed to construct your project. The travel grants willhe1p defray the cost of travel to the second symposium and thefinal test event. SCORE funds do not cover student or facultysalaries or capital (permanent) equipment, and are awarded with thestipulation that they will not be subject to overhead charges. A" lemorandum of Agreement't detailing the use ahd restrictions ofSCORE funds accdmpanies each grant. Further, depending upon theoriginal source of the funds, i.e., an NSF grant, an ERDA con-tract, industrial support., etc., appropriate copyright and patentagreements will be included which must be adhered to.

-2-

217

Design Proposals received by April 30, 1976 will be eligible for 1the first round of SCORE grants to be announced following May 15,

1976. A second round of grants will be made in the early fall.

Other SponsorsThe overall average of the estimated cost of projects entered in

last year's ERA competition was $5,482. SCORE provided an average

of $2,642 to the teams for construction expenses. This indicates

that you should plan to raisea major portion of your ERA II fund-

ipg from local sources.

You should draw up a list of all potential sponsors in your area,

including businesses, foundations, and state agencies. Organiza-

tions involved with energy, such as the electric utilities and

energy resource development agencies, are good prospects. Many Icompanies have funds earmarked for the support of local programs

and activities of the nature of your ERA effort. Don't forget

your own school, either. It probably has funds you can get, and

you're certainly going to want to ask for lab space, equipment,

secretarial help, and other services it can provide.

Money, Equipment, Supplies, etc.In some cases you should not be asking for cash contributions.

Your ERA project will be composed of nuts, bolts, sheet metal,

electronics, chemicals, etc., and you'll probably need some test-ing equipment and machine shop work you can't get from your school.

Instead of asking for money from everyone, go to the manufacturers

and distributors of the equipment and supplies you need and ask

them to give their products to you as a grant. They still gettheir tax write-off, and your needs are met too. You should there-

fore make a detailed list of all the hardware and services you'regoing to need and include in your potential sponsors list the

companies that can supply them.

The ProposalIf people are going to give you money, they have to know what

they're giving it for. You should therefore put together a fund

-3-

218

raising proposal which describes your ERA II effort and includes

a project budget. To help you explain about SCORE and our compe-

titions, we've appended to this Funding Guide a SCORE description.1 Your proposal should put your ERA efforts in the perspective of a

national collegiate competition to design and build innovative

devices to help ease the energy crisis. Include: a grant request;

a description of yhat your project is, how it works, and thespecific problem it's designed to solve; drawings, diagrams, and

schematics; a list of team members with short biographies; a de-

tailed project budget (more about the budget below).

Play up the fact that you're students at the local university and

that your school is behind your efforts. You'll find companies

receptive when you approach them for help as university studentswho are working on a program to help solve'a real world problem

that they can relate to.

Have your proposal offset printed instead of Xeroxed. It Will

look better and cost you less.

Project Budget

Make your budget as detailed and itemized as you can. It will

show you've done some hard thinking and planning on your project.

Below are some budget categories you should think of including:

Project equipment and supplies - we've already discussed this.Travel - you'll need some money to help pay for travel to

two ERA symposia and the Final Testing event.

Wages - in addition to getting academic credit for your ERA

work, you might .want to get paid. This is especially true

over the summer. Be sure your rates are consistent with

school policy.Publication and Xerox - your team may want to send a newsletter

to sponsors, make copies of documents, and publish a finalreport. Your funding proposal will have to be printed.

Telephone - hopefully your school can pick up this item, butthen again, it may not be able to do so.

-4-

219

AccountingYou should talk to the accounting officer of your department or

school about setting up a special grant account for your use. When

you receive grants, the money should be deposited in this account

and all expenditures for your project charged to this account.Potential sponsors will be much more willing to give you funds

if they know your school is handling the administration of the

grant. They then know that proper records will be maintained,

and it helps with your credibility.

Hello, I'm calling from . . .Now that you know who you're going to ask for help and have a

good proposal, call them up. Tell them who you are, what you'redoing and how they can help. Don't say too much, but try to set

up an appointment so you can meet with them personally and sell

them on your ERA project. You might think of putting together a

brief slide show to take. At any rate, bring copies of your pro-posal to discuss and leave with them. If they are too far away

or want to see a letter from you first, send a proposal with acover letter. Most of all, don't get discouraged if it seems

like you aren't having much luck. One of the marks of a good fund

raiser is persistence.In approaching these potential sponsors, it might help to have a

letter of introduction from the dean of engineering or some other

official from your school. If SCORE can help in this way, let us

know. We also have publications describing our past competitions

which we can provide as background material.Remember to emphasize that your project is being run by students

with a faculty advisor and administrative support from yourschool. Also impress your sponsor with your intention to keep

strict accounting control of their grant money, and send them

occasional reports on your project's progress.

-5-

220 i

Publicity

An indirect, but very effective way to boost your furtl raising effort

is to conduct a publicity campaign. It's much easier to sell a

potential sponsor on your project if they've already read or heard

about you through the media. A booklet of news clippings displayed

at a presentation can also be very influential.' The fact that your team is entered in an international competition

to develop alternative energy sources is considered very news-

worth)·. The place to start your publicity campaign is at your

school's News Office (which may also be called the Public Informa-

tion Office, Office of News Services, etc.). The News Office's

job is to get your school's name in the news, so they should be

eager to help you. Its staff should be able to prepare press

releases and arrange interviews with reporters for newspapers, wire

services, and radio and television stations.If for any reason your News Office doesn't take the initiative in

your publicity effort, at least ask them to help you write a press

release and provide you with a list of their media contacts with

mailing addresses. You might also consider recruiting a journalismstudent to help with publicity.

Don't underestimate the value of good publicity. We had an ERA team

last year that was on the verge of dropping out of the competition

because of lack of funds. They prepared a highly "visual" (a term

used by the media to describe anything kinetic and eye-catchingwhich lends itself well to still and motion photography) presenta-

tion of. the uses of solar energy and mounted a publicity

campaign. The media coverage that resulted was so good that they

ended up raising more money than they could use.

Here's wishing we all have this same problem!

-6-.

221

APPENDIX

STUDENT COMPETITIONS ON RELEVANT ENGINEERING

SCORE was established in 1971 by the academic engineering commun-ity to sponsor national intercollegiate engineering design/

hardware fabrication competitions. The SCORE concept grew from

the success of the 1970 Clean Air Car Race and the need for a

project-oriented approach to engineering education. During its

first four years, over 4,000 student engineers from 97 different

colleges and universities have participated in SCORE's 1971-72

Urban Vehicle Design Competition (UVDC), 1973-74 Students

Against Fires (SAF) competition, and the 1974-75 Energy Resource Alternatives (ERA) competition. SCORE's current program is the I

1976-77 Energy Resource Alternatives II (ERA II) competition.

SCORE competitions focus on a significant contemporary problemarea where technological solutions are possible. Environmental

quality, fire safety, and the utilization of alternative energyresources are three of the many appropriate topics. Each theme

selected must promote the achievement of SCORE's three principal

objectives: first, to stimulate a project-oriented approach to

engineering education; second, to promote new approaches to

solving relevant engineering problems; and third, to increase

national awareness of the problem the competition addresses.

A student-staffed coordinating committee is formed to organize

each competition. The committee may be located at any partici-pating university in the United States or Canada. The UVDC

committee was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Students Against Fires at the Georgia Institute of Technology,ERA at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, and the ERA II ·

Coordinating Committee is located at Washington State University.

The goal of the competing SCORE teams is to produce innovative

hardware solutions to the problem defined by the competition.

The goal in UVDC was to design and build a small, low polluting,

-7-

222

safety oriented car suited to an urban environment. In SAF the

student efforts were aimed at developing new prototype

hardware for fire prevention, detection and control. ERA

challenged its participants to produce space heating and cooling,

hot water, and electricity for a home or light industry using

non-conventional energy sources, while ERA II focuses on

electric power production from alternative energy sources. SCORE

teams may be composed of both undergraduate and graduate engineer-

ing students.

The Competition

SCORE competitions have two phases: a design phase and a hard-ware construction and testing phase. In the first, the studentteams study the problem and the design objectives of the com-

petition and develop a design for their hardware solution. The

team next submits its design proposal to the coordinatingcommittee. On the basis of·the quality of the proposal, the

committee will recommend that SCORE grant funds to the team to

help finance the actual construction of the project.

It is in the hardware construction and testing phase that many

students get their first intensive exposure to hands-on engineer-ing. In translating a design from paper to hardware, the student

must cope with the various trade-offs (such as cost, materials,

and simplicity) that the practicing engineer faces daily. This

is a fundamental aspect of engineering often ignoredin today:'sclassroom.

Final TestingThe culmination of the comDetition is the Final Testing Event.

All the teams and their projects meet at a single test site for

four days of testing and evaluation. Not only does the team's

hardware have to be innovative, it has to work. As part of the

evaluation procedure, the hardware is tested under rigorous

experimental conditions. The final testing of the Urban Vehicle

Design Competition was held at the General Motors Proving

-8-

223

Grounds in Milford, Michigan. The 66 UVDC vehicles, representing 61 United States and Canadian colleges and universities, were

subjected to a wide range of emissions, performance,.handling, 1and safety tests. The Students Against Fires final testing took 1place at the Ansul Company's Fire Technology Center in Marinette,Wisconsin. The Ansul Fire Technology Center is a unique test

facility where fires of all description were generated to evaluatethe performance of the SAF projects. ERA concluded with the final

testing of 40 student-built alternative energy projects at the

Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Sandia provideda comprehensive testing facility to evaluate the solar, wind,

methane, coal and wave-powered projects entered in the competition.

During final testing, the SCORE team members also give oral pre-

sentations before panels of judges. The orals are a simulated

marketing presentation where the students try to "sell" their

hardware design to the panel members. Innovation, relevance,

cost-effectiveness, and marketability are among the designfeatures discussed. The judging panels are comprised of research

and practicing engineers, policy makers from government and in-dustry, and professionals in the field.

The teams' scores are computed on the basis of the objective 'hardware test and the subjective oral presentations.

SymposiaEach of the two phases of the competition includes a SCOREsponsored symposium. At the first, leading experts speak on the

topic of the competition to discuss various aspects of theproblem and to acquaint the students with state of the art

technology. Teams have found the first symposium very helpfulin choosing a project for the competition. The second symposiumgives team members the opportunity to discuss their projects with

experts in workshop sessions. Both symposia include businessmeetings to discuss such matters as the competition's rules and

timetable and preparations for final testing.

At the end of each competition SCORE publishes a final summaryreport which includes technical data on all the entries.

-9-

224

OrganizationSCORE is a non-profit corporation whose members are U. S. and

Canadian engineering colleges. SCORE's organization consists of

a Board of Directors, executive officers, staff, and the memberschools. The Board of Directors currently consists of eight

Deans of Engineering and faculty members and three representativesfrom government and industry. The executive officers and staff

members are students and recent graduates. Each SCORE member

school has a faculty SCORE representative. It is not requiredthat a school be a SCORE member to participate in SCORE competi-'tions. The Annual meeting for the Board of Directors and members

is held during the fall of each year.

SCORE raises its funds from industry, government, and private

foundations. Membership in SCORE is open to any university orcollege offering the baccalaureate degree. The annual membership

fee is $100 per one thousand enrolled engineering undergraduates.

For further information contact:

SCORE, Inc. ERA II Coordinating CommitteeRoom 105, Anderson Hall Dept. of Mechanical EngineeringTufts University Washington State UniversityMedford, Mass. 02155 Pullman, WA 99163(617) 253-6833 (509) 335-7070

-10-

225

APPENDIX M

ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES COST. CODE

(ERACC)

226

User Instructions for ERACC

The use of ERACC is very easy if one follows the following instruc-

1

tions.

All of the assembly line cost variables (LINCST) are dimensioned for

a maximum of 30 jobs per system. If the project considered is composed of more

than 30 jobs, then the DIMENSION statements in the main program must be changed;

the dimensioning of variables in the subroutines is done automatically.

INPUT STATEMENTS

(1) Read the title of the case being computed. FORMAT (20A4)

energy output of the system; and the annual load factor of system and load.

(2) Read the number of jobs in the system assembly line; the annual

FORMAT (I 2, 8X, 2F10.3)

(3) The values for interest rate, tax rate, insurance, overhead rate,

etc., are entered by simple statements of the form (A=B). The variables are:

OMRT, XINFR, SLIFE, BLIFE, DRATE, XINRT, TRATE, UNIT, FACCST, SHFT, EQPLF, -

WCRATE, OHFCL, OHFCSP, SPCST, PRFT. The definition for each can be found by

consulting the list of variables.

(4) The hourly labor rates for the different assembly line labor

types are entered by simple statements of the form (A=B). Even though the

array for labor types is dimepsioned to handle 30 different types, in ERA II,

only 10 different labor types were used. The last labor type, index value=22,

signifies a job with no labor input, i.e., materials acquisition only. In

reading each job's cost data, if a null value for labor type is specified, then

the routine will try to use the null value as the index for the array. Hence,

one must specify a non-null value for the index, i.e. 22, which will be properly

indexed and read to set LABRT(j)=0 for that index value.

(5) Read each job's cost data: DM,LABOR,J,SCRFC,SPCE,EQPR.

FORMAT (2F10.2,I 5,2FS.1,2F10.2)

227

(6) Read system costs: OM,BCST. FORMAT (2F10.5)

(7) Read the exotic materials inputs: AL,ST,CU,CE,SE,CD,GA,AR,TE,

SE,FG; and the estimated annual market for the system (MRKT); and the annual

energy output (POWER). FORMAT (F10.2)

(8) Read the dollar values of the 45 selected materials and compon-

ents comprising the system for net energy calculations. FORMAT (F10.5)

(9) Read the annual energy production of the system. FORMAT (F 10.3)

This is all the input required to load and run ERACC.

SPECIAL ASPECTS OF ERACC USED FOR ERA II

(1) In calculating exotic material requirements, all systems' mater-

ials requirements were scaled (FAC) to those required to produce 20 kwhrs of

energy per day for one year (7300 kwhrs). This might be changed or deleted for

other purposes.

(2) The energy coefficients, identifying the BTU's of energy consumed

in the production of one 1967 dollar of the 45.selected commodities and materials

were taken from the publication: "Energy Analysis Handbook, " Center for Advanced

Computation, University of Illinois. CAC Document No. 214.

(3) The price indices to change the 1976.prices for a system's com-

modities and materials to 1967 prices for the net energy calculations were

approximated by price indices from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

These instructions should be sufficient to use the program, ERACC.

If after reading this information and the scoring document, the reader desires

additional information on the specifics of the ERACC program and its calcula-

tions, write for a copy of the Masters Degree Project by Joseph E. Eschbach:

"ERACC (Energy Resource Alternatives Cost Code)." The address is:

Dr. David E. StockDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringWashington State UniversityPullman, WA 99164

228

Selected Commodities and Materials for

Net Energy Analysis

Textile GoodsVeneer, PlywoodWood Products

'Mi'sal. Ch-aliddS]F-Pr'o'ductsPlasticsPaint ProductsTiresIndustrial LeatherGlass ContainersCementBricksCeramic TileClay RefractoryPlumbing FixturesConcrete ProductsStone ProductsAsbestosGaskets

i Non-clay RefractorySteel ProductsCopperLeadZincAluminiumNon-ferrous MetalsHeating HardwarePipeFabricated Metal ProductsSteam EngineIC EnginePump-CompressorsBearingsBlowersPower Transmission EquipmentRefrigeration EquipmentElectrical InstrumentationTransformersSwitchgear

i

Motors-GeneratorsElectrical HardwareComputersBatteries .Scientific InstrumentationOptical Instrumentation

229

Variables List

I. Subroutine LINCST (Line Cost)

SCRFC: Scrap factor for each job (I)REFC: Recycle factor for each job (I)DM: Direct materials cost for each job (I)LABRTR: Labor rates of employees (J)

LABOR: Labor time for each job (I)

UNIT: Number of units of production that costs calculated onSCFAC: Scale factor for job inputJBCOST: Job Cost for each job (I)MTCST: Material costs for each job (I)LABCST: Labor cost for each job (I)TJBCST: Total of all job costsTMTCST: Total of all material costsTLBCST: Total of all labor costsNJOB: Number of jobs in assembly lineTTIME: Total labor time in assembly line

II. Subroutine MNFCST (Manufacturing Cost)

SPCE: Space required for each job (I)TSPCE: Total space required for all jobsSPCST: Space cost rate ($/area)TSPCST: Total space costs for all jobsSHFT: Number of shifts per working dayRANPRD: Real annual production totalEQPLF: Equipment economic lifeEQPR: Equipment price per job (I).TEQPR: Total equipment price for all jobsDEPC: Depreciation factor for equipmentTEQCST: Annual equipment cost assessed per unit productionOHFCL: Overhead cost rate on direct labor ($/hr.)OHCl: Overhead costs on direct labor per unit productionOHFCSP: Overhead cost rate on floorspace ($/area)OHC 2: Overhead costs on floorspace per unit production

230

TOHC: Total of all overhead costs per unit production

CPRD: Number of capital payment periods that assembly time is

WCRATE: Working capital interest annual rate (%/system capital cost)WCCST: Working capital costs per unit productionFACCST: Total fixed manufacturing costsFCST: Annual distribution of fixed costs per unit production

PRFT: Percentage profit rate (%/system capital cost)TCST: Total cost assembly line plus manufacturing cost adders

III. Subroutine CANCST (Consumer Annual Cost)

DRATE: Annual.amortization discount rate

EPSCRF: Equal payment series capital recovery factorSLIFE: System amortized economic life (years)

ANCOSTl: Annual amoritzed system cost ($/year)BCST: Battery capital costXINRT: Annual insurance rate (%/capital cost)

INCST: Total annual system tax costTRATE: Annual tax rate (%/capital cost)TXCST: Total annual system tax costOMRT: Annual operation and maintenance cost rate (%/capital cost)OMCST: Total annual operation and maintenance costXINFR: Annual inflation rate

INFCST: Inflated system costEPSSF: Equal payment series sinking fund factorRECAPl: Annual recapitalization cost of systemRECAP 2: Annual recapitalization cost of batteriesBLIFE: Battery economic life (Years)BICST: Battery inflated costTACST: Total annual cost of system to consumer ($/year)

POWER: Annual power output of systemACST: Annual busbar cost of electricity to owner of system ($/kwhr.)

IV. Subroutine EXMT (Exotic Materials)

ALS: Aluminum annual 1976 productionSTS: Steel annual 1976 productionCUS: Copper annual 1976 productionCES: Cement annual 1976 production

231

SIS: Silicon annual 1976 productionCDS: Cadmium annual 1976 productionGAS: Gallium annual 1976 production ARS: Arsenic annual 1976 productionTES: Telleurium annual 1976 production 1

SES:Selenium annual 1976 production

·FGS: Fiberglass annual 1976 estimated production

FAC: Scaling factor of material demand for common system sizeMRKT: Annual estimated market for systemALD: Aluminum demand

STD: Steel demand

CUD: Copper demandCED: Cement demand

SID: Silicon demand

CDD: Cadmium demand

GAD: Gallium demand

ARD: Arsenic demand

TED: Telleurium demand

SED: Selenium demand

FGD: Fiberglass demand

K: CounterEMS: Exotic material score

V. Subroutine NEA (Net Energy Analysis)

C: Energy coefficients (I,J) (Btus/$)PI: Price indices from 1967 to current period (I)AMT: Amount of commodity used in system (I) ($)ESUM: Total energy cost of system (Btus)AEPM: Annual energy production (kwhrs.)AEP: Annual energy production (Btus)DYRS: Number of years to payback twice energy cost

NEAS: Net energy analysis score

232

1. ENERGY RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES2. COST CODE3. (ERACC)4.

5. REAL LABRTR,LABOR, LF,LABRT,JBCOST,MTCST,LABCST,NEAS6. C SET UP VARIABLES FOR ROUTINE LINCST7. C7.1 DIMENSION CASE(20)8. DIMENSION SCRFC (30) , REFC (30) ,DM (30) ,LABRTR(30) , LABOR(30) , LABRT (30)9. C

10. C SET UP VARIABLES FOR ROUTINE MNFCST11. C12. DIMENSION SPCE(30),EQPR(30),MTCST(30),SCFAC(30),LABSCT(30)12.1 DIMENSION JBCOST(30)13. COMMON /CDE/ SHFT,EQPLF,OHFCL,OHFCSP,WCRATE,UNIT,SPCST,TJBCST14. COMMON. /CDF/ FACCST, PRFT, TLBCST15. C16. C SET UP VARIABLES FOR ROUTINE CANCST17. C18. COMMON /EFG/ DRATE,SLIFE,BCST,XINRT,TRATE,OMRT,XINFR,BLIFE,POWER18.1 COMMON /EFH/ OM19. C19.1 C READ CASE LABEL19.2 C19.3 READ(5,51) CASE19.4 WRITE(6,60) CASE19.41 51 FORMAT(20A4)19.5 60 FORMAT (//,'$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ',20A4//)19.6 C20. C READ VARIABLE VALUES FOR ROUTINE CANCST21. C22. READ(5,100) NJOB,POWER,LF23. 100 FORMAT (12,8X,2F10.3)25. C26. C READ VARIABLE VALUES FOR ROUTINE MNFCST27. C27.01 OMRT=2.027.02 XINFR=0.27.1 SLIFE=20.027.2 BLIFE=1.027.3 DRATE=10.027.4 XINRT=0.127.5 TRATE=1.5

10 27.6 UNIT=1.0WW 27.61 FACCST=0.

27.7 SHFT=3.0#.27.8 EQPLF=O.27.9 WCRATE=10.028. OHFCL=125.028.1 OHFCSP=0.028.2 SPCST=0.028.3 PRET=10.030. C32. C SET UP LABOR COSTS33. C34. LABRT(1)=8.8035. LABRT(2)=10.8036. LABRT(3)=9.6037. LABRT(4)=9.6038. LABRT(5)=9.038.1 LABRT(6)=12.8038.2 LABRT(7)=11.6038.3 LABRT(8)=11.2038.4 LABRT(9)=11.2038.5 LABRT(10)=7.7038.6 LABRT(22)=0.39. C40. C READ VARIABLE VALUES FOR ROUTINE LINCST41. C42. DO 50 I=l,NJOB43. READ(5,300) DM(I),LABOR(I),J,SCRFC(I),REFC(I),SPCE(I),EQPR(I)44. 300 FORMAT(2F10.2,15,2F5.1,2F10.2)45. LABRTR(I)=LABRT(J)46. 50 CONTINUE46.1 READ(5,52) OM,BCST46.2 52 FORMAT(2F10.5)47. CALL LINCST(NJOB,UNIT,TJBCST,TTIME ,SCRFC,REFC, DM,LABRTR,LABOR,48. 1MTCST,LABCST,SCFAC,JBCOST,TLBCST)49. CALL MNFCST(NJOB,TCST,TTIME,SPCE,EQPR)50. CALL CANCST(ACST,TACST,LF,TCST)50.1 CALL EXMT(EMS)50.2 CALL NEA(ESUM,AEP,DYRS,NEAS)51. STOP52. END53. SUBROUTINE LINCST (NJOB, UNIT., TJBCST, TTIME, SCRFC, REFC, DM,54. 1LABRTR, LABOR,MTCST,LABCST,SCFAC,JBCOST,TLBCST)55. DIMENSION SCRFC(NJOB),REFC(NJOB),DM(NJOB),LABRTR(NJOB),LABOR(NJOB)56. DIMENSION SCFAC(NJOB),MTCST(NJOB),LABCST(NJOB),JBCOST(NJOB)57. REAL JBCOST,MTCST,LABCST,LABRTR, LABOR58. TJBCST=0.59. TMTCST=0.60. TLBCST=0.61. TTIME=0.62. DO 10 J=l,NJOB63. IF(SCRFC(J)+REFC(J).LT.1.) GO TO 2

64. SCFAC(J)=UNIT/(1.-SCRFC(J))65. SCFAC(J)=UNIT/(1.-REFC(J)) + SCFAC(J)66. GO TO 567. 2 SCFAC(J)-UNIT/(1.-SCRFC(J)-REFC(J))68. 5 CONTINUE69. MTCST(J)=DM(J)*SCFAC(J)70. LABCST(J)=LABRTR(J)*LABOR(J)*SCFAC(J)*0.2571. JBCOST(J)=MTCST(J)+LABCST(J)72. TJBCST=JBCOST(J)+TJBCST73. TMTCST=TMTCST+MTCST(J)74. TLBCST=TLBCST+LABCST(J)75. TTIME=TTIME+LABOR(J)76. 10 CONTINUE76.1 TTIME=TTIME*0.2577. WRITE(6,100)78. 100 FORMAT('1',1OX,'JOB NO',4X,'JBCST $',4X,'MTCST $',4X,79. l'LABCST $',3X,'LABRT $/HR',2X,'LABOR HRS',4X,'SCFAC',/)80. DO 20 J=d,NJOB81. WRITE(6,200) J,JBCOST(J),MTCST(J),LABCST(J),LABRTR(J),82. 1LABOR(J),SCFAC(J)83. 200 FORMAT(12X,12,4X,F8.2,3X,F8.2,4X,F8.2,3X,F6.2,5X,F6.2,5X,84. 1F8.3)85. 20 CONTINUE86. WRITE(6,300) TJBCST,TMTCST87. WRITE(6,400) TLBCST,TTIME88. 300 FORMAT(10X,'TOTAL LINE COST=',F8.2,' $/UNIT',89. 15X,'TOTAL MAT COST==',F8.2,' $/UNIT')90. 400 FORMAT(1OX,'TOTAL LAB COST=',F8.2,' $/UNIT',91. 15X,'TOTAL LINE LABOR TIME=',F8.2,'HRS7UNIT',///)92. RETURN93. END94. SUBROUTINE MNFCST(NJOB,TCST,TTIME ,SPCE, EQPR)95. DIMENSION SPCE(NJOB),EQPR(NJOB)96. COMMON /CDE/ SHFT,EQPLF,OHFCL,OHFCSP,WCRATE,UNIT,SPCST,TJPCST97. COMMON /CDF/ FACCST,PRFT,TLBCST98. C99. C CALCULATE FLOOR SPACE REQUIREMENTS

100. TSPCE=0.101. TEQPR=0.102. DO 10 J=l,NJOB103. TSPCE=TSPCE+SPCE(J)104. 10 CONTINUE105. C106. C WORKING TIME107. RANPRD=SHFT*6240/TTIME108. C109. C CALCULATE FLOORSPACE COSTS

10 110. TSPCST=SPCST*TSPCE*TTIME*3./(SHFT*RANPRD)WUl 111. C

NW(3'

112. C FIXED COSTS OR FACILITIES113. FCST=FACCST/RANPRD114. C115. C DEPRECIATION EQUIPMENT COST116. IF(EQPLF.EQ. 0) GO TO 30117. DEPFC=1./(RANPRD*EQPLF)118. DO 20 I=l,NJOB119. TEQPR=TEQPR+EQPR(I)120. 20 CONTINUE121. TEQCST=DEPFC*TEQPR122. 30 IF(EQPLF.EQ.0) TEQCST=0.122.1 IF(EQPLF.EQ.0) DEPFC=0.123. C124. C OVERHEAD BY LABOR, INDIRECT COSTS125. IF(OHFCL.EQ. 0) GO TO 40126. OHCl=TLBCST*OHFCL/100.127. TOHC=OHCl128. C

i 129. .C OVERHEAD BY FLOOR SPACE, INDIRECT COSTS130. 40 IF(OHFCSP.EQ.0) GO TO 50131. OHC2=TSPCE*OHFCSP132. TOHC=OHC2133. 50 CONTINUE134. IF(OHFCL.EQ.O.AND.OHFCSP.EQ.0) TOHC=0.0135. C136. C137. C WORKING CAPITAL COST138. CPRD=TTIME/8760.139. WCCST=TJBCST*(1.0+WCRATE/100.)**CPRD-TJBCST140. C141. C PROFIT COST142. PRFCST=TJBCST*PRFT/100.143. C144. C TOTAL COST145. TCST=TJBCST+TSPCST+TEQCST+TOHC+WCCST+PRFCST+FCST146. C WRITE HEADER STATEMENTS147. C148. WRITE(6,100)149. 100 FORMAT(/, '********** MANUFACTURING COSTS *******.***, ,/,150. WRITE(6,200) TSPCST,TSPCE,SPCST151. 200 FORMAT(1OX,'TOTAL SPACE, COSTS= $ ',F8.2,5X,152. l'TOTAL SPACE REQUIRED ',F8.2,' SQFT',5X,153. 2'SPACE COST RATE= ',F8.2,' $/SQFT HR')154. WRITE(6,300) TEQCST,DEPFC,TEQPR155. 300 FORMAT(1OX,'TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST= $ ',F8.2,5X,156. l'DEP FAC =',F8.2,' PER UNITS-YR',5X157. 2'TOTAL EQUIPMENT PRICE= $ ',F8.2)158. WRITE(6,400) TOHC,FCST159. 400 FORMAT(1OX,'TOTAL OVERHEAD COSTS= $ ', F8.2,

1

- -,1--1......7...3-„..-

160. 110X,'TOTAL FIXED/FACILITIES COST= $ ',F8.2)161. WRITE(6,500) RANPRD,WCRATE,WCCST162. 500 FORMAT(1OX,'REAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION=',F8.2,' UNITS',5X,163. l'WORKING CAPITAL RATE=',F8.2,' %/YR',164. 25X,'WORKING CAPITAL COST= $ ',F8.2)165. WRITE(6,700) PRFT,PRFCST166. 700 FORMAT(1OX,' PROFIT RATE = ',F6.2, '%/UNIT COST',167. 11OX,'TOTAL PROFIT COST= $ ',F8.2,/)168. WRITE(6,600) TCST169. 600 FORMAT(/,1OX,'MANUFACTURED UNIT COST= $ ', F8.2,/)170. RETURN171. END172. SUBROUTINE CANCST(ACST,TACST,LF,TCST)173. COMMON /EFG/ DRATE,SLIFE,BCST,XINRT,TRATE,OMRT,XINFR,BLIFE,POWER173.1 COMMON /EFH/ OM174. REAL INCST, INFCST,LF175. C176. C SYSTEM AMORTIZED COST177. DRATE=DRATE/100.178. EPSCRF= (DRATE*(1.+DRATE)**SLIFE)/((1.+DRATE)**SLIFE-1.)179. ANCSTl=(TCST+BCST)*EPSCRF180. C181. C INSURANCE ANNUAL COST182. INCST=(TCST+BCST)*XINRT/100. '183. C184. C TAX COSTS ;185. TXCST=(TCST+BCST)*TRATE/100.186. C187. C . OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS188. OMCST=(BCST+TCST)*OMRT/100.188.1 IF(OM.GT.OMCST) OMCST=OM189. C190. C INFLATION SYSTEM COST191. XINFR=XINFR/100.192. INFCST=((1.+XINFR)**SLIFE)*(TCST)193. C194. C RECAPITALIZATION SYSTEM COST195. EPSSFF= (DRATE/((1.+DRATE)**SLIFE-1.))196. RECAPl=TCST*EPSSFF196.1 RECAP1=0197. C198. C199. C INFLATION BATTERY COST200. BICST=((1.+XINFR)**BLIFE)*BCST201. C202. C RECAPITALIZATION BATTERY COST203. EPSSFF=DRATE/((1.+DRATE)**BLIFE-1.)204. RECAP2=BCST*EPSSFF

Il

NW00

205. C206. C TOTAL ANNUAL COST207. TACST=ANCST1+INCST+OMCST+RECAP1+RECAP2+TXCST208. C209. C ANNUAL COST PER WATT210. ACST=TACST/ (POWER*LF)211. WRITE(6,100)212. 100 FORMAT(/, '********** CONSUMER ANNUAL COSTS *******.**,

. A213. WRITE(6,200) ANCSTl,OMCST214. WRITE(6,201) INCST,TXCST215. WRITE(6,203) RECAPl,RECAP2216. WRITE(6,204) TACST,ACST217. 200 FORMAT(1OX,'SYSTEM ANNUAL COST=',F8.2,' $/YR',5X,218. 11OX,' OP & MAINT COST=',F8.2,' $/YR')219. 201 FORMAT(10X,'INSURANCE COST=',F8.2,' $/YR',5X,220. 11OX,'TAX COST=',F8.2,' $/YR')221. 203 FORMAT(10X,'SYSTEM RECAP COST=',F8.2,' $/YR',5X,222. 11OX,'BATTERY RECAP COST=',F8.2,' $/YR',/)223. 204 FORMAT(10X,'TOTAL ANNUAL COST=',F8.2,' $/YR',5X,//,224. 110X,'TOTAL ANNUAL POWER COST=',F8.4,' $/KWHR',//)225. · RETURN226. END227. SUBROUTINE EXMT(EMS)228. REAL MRKT229. DOUBLE PRECISION ALD,ALS,STD,STS,CUD,CUS,CED,CES,SID,SIS,230. 1CDS,CDD,GAD,GAS,ARD,ARS,TED,TES,SES,SED,FGS,FGD,ALR,231. 2STR, CUR,CER,SIR,CDR,GAR,ARR,TER, SER, FGR232. C233. C ANNUAL 1976 PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS (KG.)234. C235. ALS=3.811D9236 STS=1.162Dll237. CUS=1.388D9238. CES=6.679D10239. SIS=4.90D8240. CDS=1.996D6241. GAS=2000.0242. ARS=5.445D6.243. TES=5.942D4244. SES=1.84205245. FGS=2.632D8246. K=0.247. C248. C INPUT PROJECT MATERIAL,MARKET, AND POWER STATISTICS249. C250. READ(5,100) AL,ST,CU,CE,SI,CD,GA,AR,TE,SE,FG,MRKT,POWER251. 100 FORMAT(1F10.2)252. C253. C STANDARD SIZE POWER SCALING FACTOR

254. C255. FAC=POWER/7300.256. IF(POWER.EQ.0) FAC=1.257. C258. C ANNUAL MATERIAL DEMAND FOR PROJECT (KG.)259. C260. ALD=AL*MRKT/FAC261. STD=ST*MRKT/FAC262. CUD=CU*MRKT/FAC263. CED=CE*MRKT/FAC264. SID=SI*MRKT/FAC265. CDD=CD*MRKT/FAC266. GAD=GA*MRKT/FAC267. ARD==AR*MRKT/FAC268. TED=TE*MRKT/FAC269. SED=SE*MRKT/FAC270. FGD=FG*MRKT/FAC270.1 C OUTPUT HEADER270.2 WRITE(6,99)270.3 99 FORMAT( 1********** EXOTIC MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS *.***.*****'

.1,1

271. C272. C DEMAND/SUPPLY RATIO VERSUS CRITERIA OF DECISION273. C274. IF(ALD/ALS.GE.0.2) GO TO 10275. 31 IF. (STD/STS.GE.0.2) GO TO 11276. 32 IF(CUD/CUS.GE.0.2) GO TO 12277. 33 IF(CED/CES.GE.0.2) GO TO 13278. 34 IF(SID/SIS.GE.0.2) GO TO 14279. 35 IF(CDD/CDS.GE.0.2) GO TO 15280. 36 IF(GAD/GAS.GE.0.2) GO TO 16281. 37 IF(ARD/ARS.GE.0.2) GO TO 17282. 38 IF(TED/TES.GE.0.2) GO TO 18283 39 IF(SED/SES.GE.0.2) GO TO 19284 40 IF(FGD/FGS.GE.0.2) GO TO 20285. GO TO 50286. C287 C WRITE APPROPRIATE OUTPUT288. C289. 10 K=K+1290. ALR=ALD/ALS291. WRITE(6,101) ALD,ALS,ALR292. 101 FORMAT(1OX,'AL DEMAND=',020.5,10X,'AL SUPPLY=',D20.5,1OX,293. l'AL RATIO=',D20.5)294. GO TO 31295. 11 K=K+1296. STR=STD/STS297. WRITE(6,102) STD,STS,STR

1\) 298. 102 FORMAT (10X, ' ST DEMAND=',020.5,1OX, ' Sl SUPPLY=' , [·20. 5,10X,W .0 299. l'ST RATIO=',D20.5)

N

0300. GO TO 32301. 12 K=K+1302. CUR=CilD/CUS303. WRITE(6,103)CUD,CUS,CUR304. 103 FORMAT(10X,'CU DEMAND=',D20.5,10X,'CU SUPPLY=',D20.5,1OK,305. l'CU RATIO=',D20.5)306. GO TO 33307. 13 K=K+1308. CER=CED/CES309. WRITE(6,104)CED,CES,CER310. 104 FORMAT(1OX,'CE DEMAND=',D20.5,1OX,'CE SUPPLY=',D20.5,1OX,311. 1' CE' RATIO=' , D20.5)312. GO TO 34313. 14 K=K+1314. SIR=SID/SIS315. WRITE(6,105) SID,SIS,SIR316. 105 FORMAT(1OX,'SI DEMAND=',D20.5,1OX,'SI SUPPLY=',D20.5,1OX,317. l'SI RATIO=',D20.5)318. GO TO 35319. 15 K=K+1320. CDR=CDD/CDS' 321. WRITE(6,106) CDD,CDS,CDR322. 106 FORMAT(10X,'CD DEMAND=',D20.5,10X,'CD SUPPLY=',D20.5,10X,323. l'CD RATIO=',D20.5) *324. GO TO 36325. 16 K=K+1326. GAR=GAD/GAS327. WRITE (6,107) GAD,GAS,GAR328. 107 FORMAT(1OX,'GA DEMAND=',D20.5,1OX,'GA SUPPLY=',D20.5,1OX,329. l'GA RATIO=',D20.5)330. GO TO 37331. 17 K=K+1332. ARR=ARD/ARS333. WRITE(6,108) ARD,ARS,ARR334. 108 FORMAT(1OX,'AR DEMAND=',D20.5,1OX,'AR SUPPLY=',D20.5,1OX,335. l'AR RATIO=',D20.5)336. GO TO 38337. 18 K=K+1338. TER=TED/TES339. WRITE(6,109) TED,TES,TER340. 109 FORMAT(1OX,'TE DEMAND=',D20.5,1OX,'TE SUPPLY=',D20.5,1OX,341 l'TE RATIO=',D20.5)342. GO TO 39343. 19 K=K+1344. SER=SED/SES345. WRITE(6,110) SED,SES,SER346. 110 FORMAT(1OX,'SE DEMAND=',D20.5,1OX,'SE SUPPLY=',D20.5,1OX,347. l'SE RATIO=',D20.5)

---- -. - -----.- - -& -'-I.-I V.

348. GO TO 40349. 20 K=K+1350. FGR=FGD/FGS351. WRITE(6,111) FGD,FGS,FGR352. 111 FORMAT(10X,'FG DEMAND=',D20.5,10X,'FG SUPPLY=',D20.5,10X,353. l'FG RATIO=',D20.5)354. GO TO 50355. 50 IF(K. GT.0) GO TO 60356. EMS=5.0357. WRITE(6,200) EMS358. 200 FORMAT (//,10X, 'EXOTIC MATERIAL SCORE=',F10.2 ,//1359. GO TO 70360. 60 EMS=0.361. WRITE(6,200) EMS362. 70 RETURN363. END364. SUBROUTINE NEA (ESUM,AEP,DYRS,NEAS)365. REAL NEAS366. DIMENSION C(45),AMT(45),PI·(45)367. DATA C(1) /92312.0/367.1 DATA C(2) /78517.0/367.2 DATA C(3) /82755.0/367.3 DATA C(4) /197303.0/367.4 DATA C(5) /243130.0/367.5 DATA C(6) /136215.0/367.6 DATA C(7) /101949.0/367.7 .DATA C(8) /61417.0/367.8 DATA C(9) /166804.0/369.9 DATA C(10)/517502.0/368. DATA C(11)/367046.0/368.1 DATA C(12)/119463.0/368.2 DATA C(13)/193862.0/368.3 DATA C(14)/98348.0/368.4 DATA C(15)/117234.0/368.5 DATA C(16)/56981.0/368.6 DATA C(17)/119140.0/368.7 DATA C(18)/91248.0/368.8 DATA C(19)/162366.0/368.9 DATA C(20)/282390.0/369. DATA C(21)/154408.0/369.1 DATA C(22)/121755.0/

· 369.2 DATA C(23)/303306.0/369.3 DATA C(24)/428437.0/369.4 DATA C(25)/173590.0/369.5 DATA C(26)/78488.0/369.6 · DATA C(27)/82005.0/369.7 DATA C(28)/81634.0/N

A 369.8 DATA C(29)/114477.0/1-1 369.9 DATA C(30)/78994.0/

N*.10 370. DATA C(31)/69641.0/

370.1 DATA C(32)/61145.0/370.2 DATA C(33)/89025.0/370.3 DATA C(34)/68990.0/370.4 DATA C(35)/65971.0/370.5 DATA C(36)/77610.0/370.6 DATA C(37)/39222.0/370.7 DATA C(38)/82671.0/370.8 DATA C(39)/52207.0/370.9 DATA C(40)/70507.0/371. DATA C(41)/78791.0/371.1 DATA C(42)/59025.0/371.2 DATA C(43)/107873.0/371.3 DATA C(44)/51684.0/371.4 DATA C(45)/48123.0/372. DATA PI(1) /1.299/ 1372.1 DATA PI(2) /1.877/372.2 DATA PI(3) /1.877/372.3 DATA PI(4) /1.471/372.4 DATA PI(5) /1.210/372.5 DATA PI(6) /1.570/372.6 DATA PI(7) /1.393/372.7 DATA PI(8) /1.512/372.8 DATA PI(9) /1.490/372.9 DATA PI(10)/1.491/373. DATA PI(11)/1.491/373.1 DATA PI(12)/1.491/373.2 DATA PI(13)/1.491/373.3 DATA.PI(14)/1.491/373.4 DATA PI(15)/1.491/373.5 DATA PI(16)/1.491/373.6 DATA PI(17)/1.491/373.7 DATA PI(18)/1.491/373.8 DATA PI(19)/1.491/373.9 DATA PI(20)/1.695/374. DATA PI(21)/1.688/374.1 DATA PI(22)/1.688/374.2 DATA PI(23)/1.688/374.3 DATA PI(24)/1.688/374.4 DATA PI(25)/1.688/374.5 DATA PI(26)/1.586/374.6 DATA PI(27)/1.484/374.7 DATA PI(28)/1.484/374.8 DATA PI(29)/1.484/374.9 DATA PI(30)/1.431/375. DATA PI(31)/1.431/375.1 DATA PI(32)/1.474/375.2 DATA PI(33)/1.474/375.3 DATA PI(34)/1.474/

'-.

.I.I.i .-i- ----p--- -.V -Il---.. --- ----

375.4 DATA PI(35)/1.474/375.5 DATA PI(36)/1.232/375.6 DATA PI(37)/1.329/375.7 DATA PI(38)/1.329/375.8 DATA PI(39)/1.329/375.9 DATA PI(40)/1.329/376. DATA PI(41)/1.73/376.1 DATA PI(42)/1.064/376.2 DATA PI(43)/1.360/376.3 DATA PI(44)/1.481/376.4 DATA PI(45)/1.086/412. DO 10 J=1,45415. READ (5,200) AMT(J)416. 200 FORMAT(1F10.5)417. 10 CONTINUE418. ESUM=0.0419. DO 25 J=1,45421. AMT(J)=AMT(J)/PI(J)422. ESUM=AMT(J)*C(J)+ESUM424. 25 CONTINUE425. READ(5,300) AEPM426. 300 FORMAT(F10.3)427. AEP=AEPM*3.413E3428. DYRS=2*0.35*ESUM/AEP ,429. IF (DYRS.LE.12.) NEAS=7.5430. IF (DYRS.GT.12.0.AND.DYRS.LT.20.) NEAS=5.63431. IF (DYRS.GT.20.) NEAS=0.0431.1 WRITE (6,99)431.2 99 FORMAT (1X, 1********** NET ENERGY ANALYSIS .*.*.*****, 1/)432. WRITE (6,500) ESUM,AEP,DYRS433. 500 FORMAT(1OX,' ENERGY COST= ', E12.6, ' BTUS', /,1OX,434. l'ANNUAL POWER PRODUCTION = ', E12.6, ' BTUS',/,1OX,435. 2'YEARS TO DOUBLE ENERGY COST= ', E12.6,/)436. WRITE (6,600) NEAS437. 600 FORMAT(1OX,'NET ENERGY SCORE=', F10.3 ,//1438. RETURN439. END440. $DATA

N#.W

THE RNAL REPOI 2 1 - UNT Digital Library

Documents

Transcript of THE RNAL REPOI 2 1 - UNT Digital Library