Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Germany export 4MWh E-Energy although 8 Nuclear-Power-Stations turned off

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by virta View Post
    Somehow you once again answer to question with something completely out of discussion. And totally forget what you 2 messages ago was "proposing" as a solution for energy production.
    thats your problem not my. your point is there is no alternative and my point there is an alternative.

    so i won and you lose thats easy!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by virta View Post
      93%

      You just lost with 1%.
      a heater or a power plant with or without stream re-condensing module?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by virta View Post
        Norway has 8th highest cancer rate in the world.
        And no nuclear energy.
        Australia is 3th.
        No nuclear energy.
        no nuclear energy but its the radioactivity because of the ozone hole
        so you are lose again in the arguing competitive!


        Originally posted by virta View Post
        Is that disaster or not.
        sure it is!

        Originally posted by virta View Post
        Denmark has highest rate of cancer in the world.
        And it has highest amount of wind power.
        =>Wind power creates cancer.
        i think its the problem with the trans fatty acids in Denmark

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          a heater or a power plant with or without stream re-condensing module?
          I was talking about producing electricity for 50/MWh when you started comparing who makes larger number, which I clearly won by 1. Or 4.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by virta View Post
            I was talking about producing electricity for 50/MWh when you started comparing who makes larger number, which I clearly won by 1. Or 4.
            ok dude you lose because we get energy for ZERO per MWh.

            this is so because a solar power plant hit return of investment and then if its your own power plant you get energy for ZERO!

            oh and you lose again LOL-

            if you read the hole forum threat then you can read my calculation about solar power

            it costs 35 per MWh if you're not the owner.

            and you lose again!...LOL-- give up dude.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
              ok dude you lose because we get energy for ZERO per MWh.
              this is so because a solar power plant hit return of investment
              With real market price (<70/MWh) of electricity and solar panels this newer happens.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by virta View Post
                With real market price (<70/MWh) of electricity and solar panels this newer happens.
                dude i do have a 10,5KWp solar power plant i really know whats going on in germany.

                the KFW-Bank pay it 100% without any credit safety

                and then you hit return of investment after 8 years.

                but your modules do have guarantee of 20 years and a run to end of life of 40 years.

                then if you wana calculate 40MWh of energy you calculate 1MWh with the EEG law price of 0,16

                its 160 per 1 MWh forced by EEG law.

                now you calculate 8MWh its 160*8= 1 280

                now you have your price for solar power over 40 years. (because we calculate the costs not the market price and profit.)

                1280/40= 32 per 1MHh if you only calculate it with 100% Guarantee of the modules its 64 per 1MWh.

                this is the PURE costs! so you lose again!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                  in germany. the KFW-Bank pay it by EEG law.
                  With real market price (<70/MWh) of electricity and solar panels this newer happens.

                  Comment


                  • Yes Germany may export 4MWh of energy but they may still import 20MWh. Its common for countries to exchange power back and forth so just exporting 4MWh is meaningless. You see statistics showing both net export vs net import to be able to draw any conclusions.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by virta View Post
                      With real market price (<70/MWh) of electricity and solar panels this newer happens.
                      do you cover profit in your cost calculation?

                      are you stupid?

                      i calculate 32 per 1MWh of pure costs for solar power.
                      even if you only calculate 20 years and not 40 years you get 64
                      and this is lower than your (<70/MWh)
                      your argument is only valid if you point out that the profit rate is to high.
                      sure the profit rate of the companies are to high but its not the fault of the solar power.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Obscene_CNN View Post
                        Yes Germany may export 4MWh of energy but they may still import 20MWh. Its common for countries to exchange power back and forth so just exporting 4MWh is meaningless. You see statistics showing both net export vs net import to be able to draw any conclusions.
                        That's already accounted for. Import 23,9 Terawatt-Stunden, export 27,9 Terawatt-Stunden.

                        Comment


                        • i calculate 32€ per 1MWh of pure costs for solar power.
                          Show the facts not just some random numbers.

                          Comment


                          • Virta, he can't. Any time he's starting to lose the argument he starts raving about how Adolf Hitler was sooo great and Germany is teh winnahs at everything!

                            I was writing a detailed response to his post to me earlier, but realised I was late to pick up my son from swimming.

                            I'll summarise;

                            The numbers I gave were accurate, scientifically proven doses. Grays and Sieverts are scientific measurments of dose, taking into account the different types of radiation and their effects on different body tissues (emphasis for Quazimodo there).

                            I await his reasoned and well thought out response to any arguments that oppose his point of view. I suspect I'll be waiting for a long time.

                            I will, however, correct him (again) on a couple of his previous posts:

                            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                            here you are wrong because a nuclear power plant isn't a normal thermal operate power station.
                            the 4% is calculated based of the energy is contained in the radioactive material.
                            a nuclear power plant also lost energy by radio waves. not only heat and you only calculate the efficiency of the thermal heat!
                            i calculate ALL energy in the full efficiency.
                            Oooo, here we're redefining the internationally accepted measurement of efficiency. I could take into account all of the energy in a litre of petrol, but then we'd only have an efficiency of less than 0.0000000000000001% (remembering E=mc2)

                            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                            i know that all legal limits are wrong because civil studies prove it wrong in Germany.
                            Name them then. Provide links, quotes, peer review papers. Until I see those, you're the one spouting bullshit.

                            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                            nice try but in my knowledge the chemotherapy is a chemical way to destroy cancer not the "radioactive wave" way to kill cancer.
                            but yes i ignore this for you. sure you are right you need nuclear reactors for medical use but you don't need a nuclear power plant.
                            Sorry, I meant brachytherapy and radioisotope therapy. My mistake. Well spotted.

                            I'm puzzled by your anger at subsidies for nuclear power (last time I looked, there weren't any) but you're fine with a 'limited by law' cost of wind power. How do you think teh electricity companies make a profit from selling wind energy? That's right, subsidies. In the UK, they are paid when they generate, and when they don't. How is this not a subsidy?

                            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                            sure you miss something you miss the studies about cancer in Asse They are dying like fly mosquitoes.
                            If it is that bad, then the international media would be all over it. Look at Fukushima, how many have died because of the radiation? 0. that's right, no-one. Yet the media are still all over it. How often do we hear about the 25,000 people killed by the tsunami? Almost never. Which is the biggest disaster, the power plant or the tsunami?

                            Comment


                            • About cancers around nuclear power plants: This kind of study has been done in many countries (USA, UK, France, Sweden...) and only the German one showed a correlation. The authors of the German study said that radiation cannot be the cause, as there was no extra radiation around the NPPs. Furthermore, a similar correlation was found in places where NPPs were once planned but none were built. (Last link is very informative.)
                              http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/05May/Pa...ia-report.aspx
                              http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blo...er-or-does-it/
                              http://talknuclear.ca/index.php/2011...of-the-debate/

                              There is evidence that childhood leukemia is caused by infective diseases. When service towns are built near NPPs and other large industrial installations, it increases children's exposure to infections.
                              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00047-0003.pdf

                              Comment


                              • About the main claim of the article, that Germany is an exporter of power despite axing 20% of its generation. Another poster already said this is average data since January, and Germany became an importer since the shutdown. But if anyone still has doubts, look at the chart in this article:
                                http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...y_3108111.html

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X