Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

green energy (Germany) beat nuclear energy(France) in cost effiency!

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you make a big mistake here you think a Solar power plant can not operate 24/7 right? you are wrong!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
    this is solar power and operate 24/7 in full load.
    Check the power rating. This is woefully insufficient. Moreover it does not really operate 24/7 even if it uses thermal storage, it will generate almost nothing in the winter when the demand is highest.

    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    also Osmotic power plants and wave power plants also operate 24h/7day per week.
    The innumeracy of nuclear opponents never fails to amaze me. The largest and only osmotic power plant ever constructed produces barely enough power for two electric kettles. Even if its output was doubled as suggested in the article you linked to, 125000 such power plants would be required to replace just one nuclear reactor.

    Wave power is just as intermittent as wind power. It generates substantial energy only when there are large waves.

    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    wrong a updraft tower is a solar power plant and operate 24/7 ! also a smart grid network worldwide makes it unlikely that there isn't any wind blowing WORLDWIDE.
    A smart grid is supposed to be about demand management, so that when there is no wind, the poor who cannot afford to pay more for electricity are cut off first, and the rich are unharmed. It is not about a worldwide grid, which is technically impossible - the transmission losses would make it impractical, not to mention the incredible cost of this scheme.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
      What is the source of these numbers? These sums are several times the construction costs of all German nuclear power plants. Links to German-only videos are not very useful.
      not useful for you. but I'm german lol.
      the source was: ZDF the german Government TV (but independent)
      another video with similar tropic :


      in fact you can never beat the german "ZDF"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZDF

      in fact about this tropic the ZDF would never bring up a lie.

      the facts are clear nuclear power plants are FAKE up to 100%!

      Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
      This is completely unintelligible to me. What exactly are you arguing? That renewable energy is given extra money, yet it is actually cheaper than fossil fuel burning?
      my point is the "truth" there are valid power sources and there are stupid power sources.

      cold-fusion is valid compared to this hot-fusion is "stupid"

      also nuclear power plants are "stupid" its only useful for weapons or medicine but not for a energy source.

      there are so much more powerful energy sources like "Osmotic power" really no one need nuclear power plants.

      we need a great mix of different energy sources but we have to opt out "obsolete" power sources like "nuclear power"

      if you compare it to cold-fusion its 100% obsolete.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
        If a leftist / Green politician is your idea of a reliable source on nuclear power, then you are a lost case.
        i don't care about "leftist / Green politician" i care about the Truth you can read the truth in his words in the LAW!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
          Check the power rating.
          this is not a valid criteria the only valid criteria is: its "cheap"

          also you can double the power output with the same "tower" if you compare the updraft tower with a downdraft tower!
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...28downdraft%29
          you only need to push water into the hot stream at top of the tower and let it fall into second part of the tower.
          then you get 166% of the overall power output and its very "cheap"

          Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
          This is woefully insufficient.
          this doesn't matter its a cheap and unlimited power source.

          Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
          Moreover it does not really operate 24/7 even if it uses thermal storage, it will generate almost nothing in the winter when the demand is highest.
          it also works in the Winter it only don't have 100% of the output but this doesn't matter because its still cheap.

          Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
          The innumeracy of nuclear opponents never fails to amaze me.
          wow you really beat me hard.

          Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
          The largest and only osmotic power plant ever constructed produces barely enough power for two electric kettles. Even if its output was doubled as suggested in the article you linked to, 125000 such power plants would be required to replace just one nuclear reactor.
          if you put the same 400 billion dollar (only for Germany ) in research like the nuclear power gets then you will get a great technique.

          Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
          Wave power is just as intermittent as wind power. It generates substantial energy only when there are large waves.
          some systems are focused on small waves but that not the point in a smart grid you need many power sources to backup them to make a fail impossible.

          Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
          A smart grid is supposed to be about demand management, so that when there is no wind, the poor who cannot afford to pay more for electricity are cut off first, and the rich are unharmed. It is not about a worldwide grid, which is technically impossible - the transmission losses would make it impractical, not to mention the incredible cost of this scheme.
          transmission losses tend to be ZERO if you use high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) electric power transmission or High-temperature superconductivity

          the german right now change their current cables from AC current to DC

          they plan a Super high-voltage, direct current network all over Europe.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-te...erconductivity

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-vo...direct_current

          " It is not about a worldwide grid, which is technically impossible"

          you are wrong it is Possible! IT IS Possible with a HVDC Network!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
            If a leftist / Green politician is your idea of a reliable source on nuclear power, then you are a lost case.
            Because the other side of the aisle is the pinnacle of honesty. Which is why Greece elected Nazis.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
              Because the other side of the aisle is the pinnacle of honesty. Which is why Greece elected Nazis.
              true but the german "Left-wing party" isn't like "Nazis" LOL ...

              but even a "Nazi" can tell you the truth about a "tropic"

              and nuclear power isn't a tropic about nazis or left its a technical tropic in fact the German "Lefts" are not generally against nuclear power its just that all LAWs in Germany are "fake" (means the laws are so complex and most of the time the rich WIN and the poor lose. )

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
                ....
                dear Tweenk there are more power plants with the ability to backup and do base load:

                Tidal power for example and a wood-gas-diesel power plant as another example.

                and "Marine current power" and Geothermal energy works to in island for example.

                also GAS driven power-plants can be used to backup with methane synthesis

                http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EE-Gas

                and Diesel power plants can also be driven with wood if you use a alpfakat http://www.alphakat.de/temp/index.php

                German AlphaKat with a German Diesel engine fix your "Base-load-nightmare" problems instantly!

                Comment


                • #38
                  geothermal and hydroelectric plants are pretty good

                  But your base needs to be nuclear.

                  70% nuclear, 30% green is about right.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    cold-fusion is valid compared to this hot-fusion is "stupid"
                    Hot fusion isn't ready yet. Cold fusion will never exist period.

                    Also, you probably oppose "hot fusion" because it would make nuclear reactors highly efficient and low waste. It would almost make nuclear power impossible to criticise. Oh no.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Even though Germany won't build anymore reactors, the rest of the world will. I'm wondering if the green revolution will also improve safety, considering this statistic suggests at least 18 more nuclear reactors will be constructed in the vicinity of Germany.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Photoelectric power plants in Germany now beating 20 nuclear power plants

                        The German solar power plants now do have: 22 000 Megawatt in the peak time

                        http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/sp...id_758751.html

                        and this means the solar power makes Expensive peak-power-plants obsolete in germany because germany do have a peak at 12 o clock.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                          But your base needs to be nuclear.

                          70% nuclear, 30% green is about right.
                          why nuclear? you can do the same with a wood+alphaKat+Diesel power plant.

                          technically nuclear isn't essential.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by scottishduck View Post
                            Hot fusion isn't ready yet. Cold fusion will never exist period.

                            Also, you probably oppose "hot fusion" because it would make nuclear reactors highly efficient and low waste. It would almost make nuclear power impossible to criticise. Oh no.
                            LOL you beat yourself

                            ""hot fusion" because it would make nuclear reactors highly efficient and low waste."

                            VERSUS:

                            "Hot fusion isn't ready yet."

                            LOL...

                            and this --->"Cold fusion will never exist period." is just wrong because there are Cold-fusion heating units to buy right now with a positive reputation.
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

                            in fact cold fusion is more "Ready" than hot fusion and nuclear

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              GE Chief: Nuclear 'hard to justify'

                              (Financial Times) -- Nuclear power is so expensive compared with other forms of energy that it has become "really hard" to justify, according to the chief executive of General Electric, one of the world's largest suppliers of atomic equipment.
                              [...]
                              Thank you Mr. General Electric chief for telling some truth.
                              Last edited by Fenrin; 08-01-2012, 11:18 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Fenrin View Post
                                GE Chief: Nuclear 'hard to justify'

                                Thank you Mr. General Electric chief for telling some truth.
                                That's because being clueless, you come to that conclusion. Wasn't this already established?

                                Hopefully, you don't represent all Germans since it seems most from there come to a similar conclusion,

                                http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60189878-d...#axzz22JBCf2ku

                                Why don't you quote the entire story and look at all the facts? Oh yeah, because you don't so you come to the quick conclusion that 'nuclear power' is mroe expensive or not as efficient or whatever incorrect conclusion you can think of as long as you can pretend these 'alternative' fuels are so much more cheaper. But, it's not a big surprise because Germans are fooled everyday and they don't seem to comprehend what's going on about anything (take a look at the EU/EURO swindle).

                                Anyway, one of the best answers or replies to that article was this one:

                                "GE accepts that it cant make a safe reliable cost effective nuclear power station, nor can it generate lots of profits from rolling out thousands of them. But it can make a profit out of installing cheap gas stations and a few very expensive windmills that don't make any difference to the fuel burn, but attract an effective subsidy three times the greatest subsidy that has ever been given to any nuclear industry, and which wont be decommissioned at all - just left to rust (as they are in California) when the subsidies vanish because the governments that engendered them are long gone."

                                That's right: the subsidies that the other energies get make them cheaper and more attractive. But, most of them need power backup and the REAL costs are not reported or the data is spun so people don't get the actual information. They might be safer (how much, though, is very debateable - especially if looking at wind power such as windmills) but more efficient and more cheaper, is highly debateable and most likely, the answer is 'they're not.'

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X