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

  • #46
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    First insightful counter-nuclear powerplant post.

    However... While nuclear has some very appearent and visual in-your-face accidents, other power plants are silent killers (not counting solar panels and windmils, etc.).

    Imagine the deathtoll of all hurricanes, floods, tempeture rises and sea level risings and melting ice capades and animal deaths, dissapearing coral... all that shit.


    That's a universal truth, sadly...
    there is at the moment no need for that, we can use gas-plants if we really cant push up the alternative energies fast enough, its more clean than coal. And its a myth that atom energie does not produce any co2.

    http://timeforchange.org/co2-emissio...ns-electricity

    so you have a minimal better co2-rate with atom energie then you would have with gas, that minimal amount more of co2 is no bad thing in the gain of no totaly gaus we will get each 10 years from atomic energie. In japan they are better takers, if such thing happens in france or so, you will have mass panic and nobody will live there ever. they will all run away to northern europe or someone else.

    And its not proven (why is that not teached in school if its proven) that co2- is bad for the earth, its just unlogical, because plants better groth. And if thats the price we have to pay I even get a fan of this co2-collecting technologie, (as much negative points and risks that has), at least if a country use that technolegy they will mostly have to deal with the problems alone when their fields stopp growing stuff and not countries that not save money in investing into alternative energie gets doomed.

    and whats the point there are claims that alternative technologie is a bit more expensive, some other say its cheaper, so ok jsut belive for a moment its a bit more epensive is that the only reason why we would use a very dangerous technologie like atomic doom reactors?

    Comment


    • #47
      Q, you should drop this one.

      Here's a study, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...-dPcWn9MZrvjQg

      Nuclear plants can be safe and generally are. We know how ionizing radiation works. We know the typical amounts we can, on average, survive without significant increase in risk of cancer over a typical lifetime (that later bit is important). The suits worn for the red zone workers (I'm assuming that's the name used for them) protects them against alpha particles and radioactive "dust", but not against beta particles or gamma rays but those are also not nearly as bad as the heavy alpha particles. So, the workers are actually pretty well protected (not to say that they CAN'T be overexposed, of course).
      Nuke is safe, and nothing is as energy dense that we can currently access, but they are insanely expensive to build and maintain (for good reason).
      BTW, coal (and the mining thereof) also release radioactive particles when burned, but only small amounts. So, lets keep this all in perspective and look at the tons of data not anecdotal reports.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
        Because they are not based on laser technology. What it means is that it is far less effective and potentialy (statistically) saving less lives than optic smoke alarms.
        Not because its radiation level is deadly.
        LOL modern systems do not need radioative materials. modern systems do have co2 detectors without radioactivity also modern one do have even more they have chip to detect multiple substances like co,co2,NOx, and stuff like that. also there are infrared optical systems based on analyzing the heat directly.

        radioactive materials are just obsolete.
        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
        It's just lazyness.
        PS: When we installed this smoke alarm, at that time there was no optic smoke alarm to buy(simply had to be invented, yet). I'm just not upgrading my false sence of security.
        ok but smoke alarm with radioactive materials are just obsolete!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Panix View Post
          Do the math. Both are under well under 10%.
          LOL.. do you know the word "German Angst" we Germans only accept 100% safety



          Originally posted by Panix View Post
          Problem is the backup solutions are still poor and inefficient.
          one secret about germany compared to the Fukushima disaster is the fire fighters in japan do not have "Generators" to backup the cooling solutions in the nuclear power plant now the secret about germany is we have the backup!
          because why? we not only have the firefighters with generators we also do have the THW "technisches hilfswerk"
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technisches_Hilfswerk
          And japan fail because they do not have a THW
          in Germany you will never ever get an energy collapse like the one in japan or the US ones.
          in germany every single Town no even a village no even every company do have a THW fighters.
          no joke. if in Germany the energy systems collapse the THW and the firefighters come with more generators you can count.
          right now we have 83,807 THW fighters stay on line with a Annual budget EUR 176.000.000 € to do Technical Emergency Relief

          and the USA do not have a THW ! and japan do not have a THW!


          QUOTE=Panix;229849]
          The Governments are ranting and raving about implementing greener and cleaner renewable energy.[/QUOTE]

          just imagine germany do have the best backup system on Technical Emergency Relief and if the Germans believe they can not handle this if the THW believe they can not handle this if the fire fighters believe they can not handle it be sure the germans are right if they quit nuclear power.

          and no the THW is not the firefighter stations its a complete second backup Emergency system.
          means the THW comes if the firefighters lose .

          compare it to your country do your country have a second backup ?


          THW means super large Emergency stuff.


          even larger stuff.
          Last edited by Qaridarium; 09-30-2011, 09:56 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Australia...

            Hey Vincent, you live in Australia?

            Comment


            • #51
              P.S. all THW fighters work for ZERO money. means they are volunteer for Honor.
              Last edited by Qaridarium; 09-30-2011, 10:21 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                ubs sorry edit fail..

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Panix View Post
                  Problem is the backup solutions are still poor and inefficient.
                  a documentary about the second German backup:

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35575/1.html

                    germany turn of 8 nuclear power plants and export 4MWh el energy
                    it shows the lies about the nuclear power in germany.
                    WTF? 4MW*h of energy is just about enough to boil one bathtub of water. I.e. it's a tiny amount. Probably, they meant 4MWt of energy which is also a tiny amount - about 4% of output of a moderate-sized coal/nuclear powerplant. Even 4GWt is not much for a big country.

                    And yeah, 'green' movement in Germany should be kicked in face. Hard. With boots. Repeatedly. Because they are going to cause increase in CO2 emissions, without any benefits.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                      there is at the moment no need for that, we can use gas-plants if we really cant push up the alternative energies fast enough, its more clean than coal. And its a myth that atom energie does not produce any co2.
                      No, gas is not more cleaner than coal. Methane has much higher greenhouse potential than CO2 so gas leaks (estimated at about 2-7%) along the route from gas wells to consumer actually make gas WORSE than coal with respect to global warming.

                      At most, gas is just marginally better.

                      And its not proven (why is that not teached in school if its proven) that co2- is bad for the earth, its just unlogical, because plants better groth.
                      That's also incorrect. Availability of CO2 is not the rate-limiting factor for plant growth (for most plants). In general, CO2 increase won't cause significant increase in plant biomass growth.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cyberax View Post
                        WTF? 4MW*h of energy is just about enough to boil one bathtub of water. I.e. it's a tiny amount. Probably, they meant 4MWt of energy which is also a tiny amount - about 4% of output of a moderate-sized coal/nuclear powerplant. Even 4GWt is not much for a big country.

                        And yeah, 'green' movement in Germany should be kicked in face. Hard. With boots. Repeatedly. Because they are going to cause increase in CO2 emissions, without any benefits.
                        you are right i fail here its 4GWh (Giga-Watt-hora) or for english people : 4GWt Giga-Watt-Time

                        for 4GWh you can shutdown another round of 2-4 nuclear reactors.

                        right now germany do have 150GW of power plants.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Cyberax View Post
                          No, gas is not more cleaner than coal. Methane has much higher greenhouse potential than CO2 so gas leaks (estimated at about 2-7%) along the route from gas wells to consumer actually make gas WORSE than coal with respect to global warming.
                          At most, gas is just marginally better.
                          That's also incorrect. Availability of CO2 is not the rate-limiting factor for plant growth (for most plants). In general, CO2 increase won't cause significant increase in plant biomass growth.
                          germany do not plan a backup based on gas.

                          germany plan a smart grid backup based on HGÜ(highvoltage-direct current-cable) in an European grid with Sweden and Norway to use there water power plants in the fords as backup.

                          one of this cable is: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Cable

                          and they plan the biggest ever build to Norway http://www.norger.biz/norger/

                          the first expansion stage will have 1,4GigaWatt and 11 TWh
                          Last edited by Qaridarium; 09-30-2011, 11:32 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Coal is 'worse' than Natural Gas. But, Nuclear is 'better' than either (in terms of CO2).

                            There's a few sources that display the results but the wiki (which seems to have put together the chart from it) show thus:

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari..._gas_emissions

                            What the wiki fails to insinuate which should also be presented is that the energy produced/delivered in terms of efficiency is greater with the nuclear energy so despite the low numbers of CO2 from the renewable, the energy output in terms of efficiency is much lower. Especially with wind.

                            So, again, examined in terms of either CO2 or efficiency, the renewables are not that great percentage wise per output and the efficiency is even worse. Just an observation.

                            But, coal CO2 emissions is worst. From this presentation, that's what it appears to me.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                              you are right i fail here its 4GWh (Giga-Watt-hora) or for english people : 4GWt Giga-Watt-Time
                              Please, learn physics.

                              Watt-hours are units of _energy_ and 4GWh is a small amount - about the energy in 10 tons of gasoline. If you want to talk about German export in terms of total energy exported, then the units you want to use are TWh (Terra-Watt hours).

                              Watts are units of _power_ and so the correct number is 4GW (which is the same in all languages, since it's standard a SI unit) which means 4 Giga-Watts.

                              for 4GWh you can shutdown another round of 2-4 nuclear reactors.
                              right now germany do have 150GW of power plants.
                              And soon will need more as energy consumption is going to rise with introduction of electric automobiles and transition from coal to electricity.

                              Besides, 4GWt out of 150GWt is marginal. It's well within normal variations in power generation (because of plant maintenance, variability of wind/solar power, etc).

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Panix View Post
                                Coal is 'worse' than Natural Gas. But, Nuclear is 'better' than either (in terms of CO2).
                                There's a few sources that display the results but the wiki (which seems to have put together the chart from it) show thus:
                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari..._gas_emissions
                                What the wiki fails to insinuate which should also be presented is that the energy produced/delivered in terms of efficiency is greater with the nuclear energy so despite the low numbers of CO2 from the renewable, the energy output in terms of efficiency is much lower. Especially with wind.
                                So, again, examined in terms of either CO2 or efficiency, the renewables are not that great percentage wise per output and the efficiency is even worse. Just an observation.
                                But, coal CO2 emissions is worst. From this presentation, that's what it appears to me.
                                i do not understand the coal vs gas vs nuclear FUD.

                                Germany try to kick of all of them. they start the biggest investment world wide in green energy and smart grid and new cables.

                                germany will spend 25 000 000 000€ only in cables.
                                germany will spend 400 000 000 000€ only in new power plants.

                                and again the germans think they can beat coal and gas and nuclear in a single round!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X