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

  • You can look at the stats for yourself.

    http://www.energy.eu/

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...osing-reactors

    My point is most of the articles are favorable because of the agenda. But, read the comments. There's conflicting reports and debates. It shows that there's a movement and it's good but it's slow and costly.

    Also, the assertion is the move to removable energies is good in theory but it's a gradual process and Germany is investing in bailing out EU countries while investing in these energies. The evidence (especially read the last comment about wind power) is that wind/weather is not sufficient.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tuke81 View Post
      Interesting little thing. Rather small tough i.e. our sauna has 6kW stove at home. I would rather take some fuel cell based technology over that(sadly those are very expensive). Like this:
      http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/about-f...ons/stationary

      This looks more interesting:
      http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-ev...energy-project
      this power plant is designed to heat up thinks like your SAUNA but its a power plant you get electric energy because you use your SAUNA..

      1MW electrolysis... wow very micro... why not buy a 2GigaWatt 'Nuclear power plant to drive your SAUNA?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Panix View Post
        You can look at the stats for yourself.

        http://www.energy.eu/

        http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...osing-reactors

        My point is most of the articles are favorable because of the agenda. But, read the comments. There's conflicting reports and debates. It shows that there's a movement and it's good but it's slow and costly.

        Also, the assertion is the move to removable energies is good in theory but it's a gradual process and Germany is investing in bailing out EU countries while investing in these energies. The evidence (especially read the last comment about wind power) is that wind/weather is not sufficient.
        even the german child's run micro heat and power power plants to run there toys our child's also do have solar powered toy cars and LED-flashlight with unlimited energy driven by a shake generator.

        you get what? even our child's beat you in reasoning and facts.

        i can build a child heat and power power plant for maybe 10€

        you only need a bicycle dynamo and a beeswax candle and a airscrew



        in fact German child's beat you in engineering power plants.

        "In science and technology, when you're no sure what to do, do what Germans do!"
        mihai-grumazescu-78497 29. September 2011
        Last edited by Qaridarium; 10-23-2011, 02:16 PM.

        Comment


        • Longwatcher 29. September 2011:
          "I have to say this about the Germans, It is OBVIOUS when you visit Germany, they are big into solar PV and wind systems. All over the place. [...] Heck my solar panels, while obvious on Google maps are nearly invisible on the ground if you don't know to look. Germany, they are just there, all over the place."

          Longwatcher: "They have apparently been doubling their solar installation every year since 2006,"

          Panix In fact the Germans will beat your socks off with green energy!

          Comment


          • Response in that article:

            Germany produced 12,000 GWh from PV in 2010, which amounted to 1.9% of their total electricity consumption. Generation from nuclear power is in the ballpark of 20+%, so clearly they are not going to promptly be able to replace nuclear power with solar PV. Given their decision to abandon nuclear power, they won't be able to cut back on fossil fuels at all.
            Steven

            The notion that solar and wind are reducing German power costs is absurd. They are growing in Germany because of massive subsidies, and they have no chance of replacing nuclear. Germany will have to increase coal and gas to replace base load power from nuclear.
            German scientists, not under political control, estimate that the result will be 50 megatons of added CO2 emissions/year and that by the time Germany shuts all its nukes, they will have erased the total of all emissions reductions Germany has ever achieved.

            So, the real question is, will Germany pay the carbon tax to everyone else that its politically expedient plan owes us?
            Check EU's own chart which shows no glaring advantage, at least yet. The wind claims are backed up by all reports that it's not enough. I don't want to repeat myself anymore so I'll drop out of the discussion. You can hang on to your delusions, Q.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Panix View Post
              Response in that article:
              Check EU's own chart which shows no glaring advantage, at least yet. The wind claims are backed up by all reports that it's not enough. I don't want to repeat myself anymore so I'll drop out of the discussion. You can hang on to your delusions, Q.
              "I'll drop out of the discussion. " i hope this part of you will not be a delusion

              and you don't understand the word "investment" they invest 400 000 000 000 in the next 10 years.

              after that time your point of view will be a delusion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post


                The newest shit from Germany... super micro gas Stirling power plant

                1KW electric power its the super most smallest tiny power plant in the world.

                http://www.senertec.de/derdachs/dachs-stirling.html

                it dies have more than 90% efficiency.
                It's an interesting device, but hardly a power plant. It's mainly a heater. The electrical efficiency is rather low ( it says it produces 6kW of heating and 1kW of electricity, that's less than 16%), but it captures the heat for central heating. So it is useful as a generator only if you can use the 6kW of heat for each 1000W of electricity (which is not much for really, considering the size of the thing). Most big fossil-powered power plants capture the heat and send it to homes, and they have higher electrical efficiency.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
                  It's an interesting device, but hardly a power plant. It's mainly a heater. The electrical efficiency is rather low ( it says it produces 6kW of heating and 1kW of electricity, that's less than 16%), but it captures the heat for central heating. So it is useful as a generator only if you can use the 6kW of heat for each 1000W of electricity (which is not much for really, considering the size of the thing). Most big fossil-powered power plants capture the heat and send it to homes, and they have higher electrical efficiency.
                  sure sure but compare the overal effiency 90+ is highter than the most big power plants.
                  big ones lose 6% energy on the cable network for electric energy and they lose 10-20% energy on the heating energy network to the "homes"

                  this device just beat the big power plants!

                  but yes you are right its a heater+power plant its not a power plant only.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
                    Most big fossil-powered power plants capture the heat and send it to homes, and they have higher electrical efficiency.
                    It's only true in the former Soviet bloc. Judging from your nick I think you come from Poland, like me. It might be a surprise to you that district heating (centralne ogrzewanie) is nowhere near as popular in the West as it is in Poland, even in cities. It's one of the few areas of technology where Poland is ahead of the rest of the EU.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                      and you don't understand the word "investment" they invest 400 000 000 000€ in the next 10 years.
                      So the Germans turned off nuclear power plants and now have to spend 400 billion € to replace them with green energy. In the meantime, millions of tons of fossil fuels will be burned.

                      Why didn't they spend 400 billion € on green energy first, THEN turn off the nuclear power plants? It would save a lot of CO2 and the end effect would be the same.

                      That's why I consider this decision stupid, reactionary and irresponsible. You started from the wrong end. If you want to protect the environment, coal should be the first to go. Unfortunately the green clowns are completely unable of comprehending that.

                      EDIT: I would advise other people to not post anything more to this thread. Arguing with Q is pointless and pushes his propaganda title to the Phoronix main page in the "popular in the forums" column.
                      Last edited by Tweenk; 10-24-2011, 03:06 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
                        So the Germans turned off nuclear power plants and now have to spend 400 billion € to replace them with green energy. In the meantime, millions of tons of fossil fuels will be burned.
                        Why didn't they spend 400 billion € on green energy first, THEN turn off the nuclear power plants? It would save a lot of CO2 and the end effect would be the same.
                        That's why I consider this decision stupid, reactionary and irresponsible. You started from the wrong end. If you want to protect the environment, coal should be the first to go. Unfortunately the green clowns are completely unable of comprehending that.
                        EDIT: I would advise other people to not post anything more to this thread. Arguing with Q is pointless and pushes his propaganda title to the Phoronix main page in the "popular in the forums" column.
                        The sense is not to save CO2 the sense is to stop global warming.
                        and you can not stop global warming with nuclear power plants.
                        because why? its simple because the energy efficiency of nuclear power plants based on the nuclear fuel is only 4% and based on the heat in the peak using time its only 20-30%
                        this means you pollute at minimum 5 times more heat to the earth atmosphere per 1 kw electric power.
                        a 2 GW Nuclear power station pollute 10GW heat! even more if you calculate the time of the maintenance and the time of the heat wasting in the cooling pond and so one and so one.
                        you can not stop Global warming by heating the global atmosphere up with nuclear power.
                        maybe yes its less than 80% heating the atmosphere because you save "CO2" but the german also save CO2
                        They only do this in an different way.

                        they prefer to save CO2 at the building heating. Germany will never Pollute more CO2 than in the past!

                        Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
                        Why didn't they spend 400 billion € on green energy first, THEN turn off the nuclear power plants? It would save a lot of CO2 and the end effect would be the same.
                        Sure thats maybe the better way to go but in the end its the same in the end the sense is to shut down the nuclear power plants.

                        you can not save nature and the earth by building new nuclear power plants.

                        Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
                        If you want to protect the environment, coal should be the first to go.
                        no you are wrong there is no problem with coal and the first to go is "Efficiency"

                        if you build coal power plants with 90%+ efficiency and combination solar power in the coal power plant there is no problem with coal.
                        Last edited by Qaridarium; 10-24-2011, 07:58 AM.

                        Comment


                        • do you have any reference for global warming by direct heating of the atmosphere by power stations?

                          for scale radiative forcing of global warming is at the level of 1-2 watts per sq metre (from the IPCC). call it 1.5 W/m^2 and you get 770 TW of heating for the whole planet. compare that to the global energy consumption of 15 TW. (remember that to a good approximation all the energy used will end up heating earth.)

                          but i am not even sure that is a sensible comparison. the earth gets direct heating of 176 PW (176000 TW) from the sun which completely dwarfs any amount of heat we can generate. obviously most of that escapes, because otherwise the earth would be vaporised a short time. global warming is due to changing how effectively the atmosphere traps that heat.

                          solar panels are also fairly inefficient, especially the ones cheap enough to cover a useful area, so they will heat their surroundings to.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ssam View Post
                            do you have any reference for global warming by direct heating of the atmosphere by power stations?
                            its just basic physic law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

                            you can only cool down by "efficiency" because "efficiency" save CO2 and heat.

                            for example you can build a updraft tornado power plant on-top on a nuclear power plant.
                            this means you use the 10Gigawatt heat to updraft the air in your "tower" Tornado
                            a updraft power plant do have 10% efficiency this means 1Gigawatt extra electric energy from the same nuclear power plant.
                            you get what? "efficiency" is the only think that matters! and you can use ""efficiency"" on an nuclear power plant and an coal power plant and so one and so one.

                            only efficiency helps.

                            Originally posted by ssam View Post
                            for scale radiative forcing of global warming is at the level of 1-2 watts per sq metre (from the IPCC). call it 1.5 W/m^2 and you get 770 TW of heating for the whole planet. compare that to the global energy consumption of 15 TW. (remember that to a good approximation all the energy used will end up heating earth.)
                            but i am not even sure that is a sensible comparison. the earth gets direct heating of 176 PW (176000 TW) from the sun which completely dwarfs any amount of heat we can generate. obviously most of that escapes, because otherwise the earth would be vaporised a short time. global warming is due to changing how effectively the atmosphere traps that heat.
                            you are right here.
                            And yes there are always 2 parts the "heat" and the Trap "Atmosphere"
                            reduce heat works and chancing the Atmosphere works to.
                            the Germans try to reduce Heat by shutting down Nuclear power plants
                            And they try to reduce CO2 by increasing the efficiency in Building heating.
                            The KFW-Bank spend ~300 000 1% credit and 37 500 in cash for an 4 apartment house to reduce CO2 and Heat.
                            they also force the people by LAW to reduce CO2 and heat.

                            Originally posted by ssam View Post
                            solar panels are also fairly inefficient, especially the ones cheap enough to cover a useful area, so they will heat their surroundings to.
                            if you don't put photoelectric panels on the roof you lost the energy anyway.
                            this means to arguing about efficiency is pointless against solar and wind and water energy.

                            Comment


                            • waste heat is a really negligible issue.
                              http://www.skepticalscience.com/wast...e-warming.html

                              if you switched all electricity production to nuclear, and electrified transport, heating and cooking, then you would get rid of 1-2 W/m^2 of heating. the 0.028 W/m^2 from waste heat would not be an issue. currently most of or power comes from fossil fuels and so produces the same negligible amount of waste heat as nuclear.

                              making things more efficient so that you don't need to generate some much electricity is important.

                              if you cover large areas of desert solar systems do they reflect more or less of the suns heat than sand? i am going to guess the reflect less, so the will cause some local heating, and i guess this is on a similar scale to waste heat from generating the same electricity with any other power station.

                              have you seen the idea to reduce global warming by painting roofs white? solar panels look pretty close to black to me.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                                this means you use the 10Gigawatt heat to updraft the air in your "tower" Tornado
                                I said I wouldn't, but this has driven me to reply...

                                How are you proposing that you get 10GW of heat from a nuclear power plant that only generates 4500MWth (i.e. 4.5GW of heat)?

                                It is readily apparent that you don't understand how power stations work.

                                Leave this thread to the experts. You may as well , it'll save wasting the electrons with your stupid posts.
                                Last edited by Shielder; 10-24-2011, 01:42 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X