Page 12 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 356

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

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    What you don't seem to understand is that creating cheap energy is essential.
    you don't get it in Germany energy is cheap by law (for the companies) my own power plant for example the law force us to sell the energy for 0.07€ per kwh and in 3 years the sam law force us to sell the energy for 0.03€ per kwh!
    this is the EEG LAW its a law to drop the price for energy for the companies to the maximum of doping.
    but most people misunderstand that they think because the companies getting cheap energy the consumer also gets cheap energy thats complete wrong the consumer pay the highest price in Germany to bring the maximum of profit to the companies.
    consumers pay 0,30€ per kwh and the energy hungry companys are EEG frees means is 0,04€ cheaper per kw on EEG also companys don't pay MWST in germany also -0,19% also the companies can own kratfwerk of the tax-deduct.

    get it i sell energy for 0,07€ and the consumer how buy this energy pay 0,30€ !

    thats the EEG LAW!
    and the energy company make big fat profit!


    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    More paying jobs for creating energy doesn't really mean that.
    sure it means the companies get more cheap energies. because the EEG law force them !



    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    And thats the real problem with almost all green energy. Wind power is getting close to being competitive, just few times more expensive than nuclear power i think. That's because it's been mass produced for a decade.
    you fail complete.

    in Germany we have Government studies about this and the studie show that the EEG law lower the price for energy on the market. you can read this here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit-Order#Auswirkungen

    really you fail complete !

    wind millers are forced to sell energy for 0,05€ after 10 years 0,03€ solar farmers are forced to sell energy for 0,16€ after 20 years 0.03€ and so one and so one.

    and the consumer pay 0,30€ !! means big fat profit for the big 4 energy companies.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverthorn View Post
    Most cost analysis for nuclear power doesn’t include the amount of money needed for the development and the construction of final disposition. A sum which almost exceeds the amount of money needed to replace all nuclear power plants by wind/wave powered alternatives.
    Everything about nuclear power is crazy. It takes years to build it, it takes years to demolish it and all reactors have a limited lifetime before they do break. Worst of all, it only takes a handful of politicians to reduce the safety of a plant and cause a catastrophic event.
    The great thing about green electricity is that you can waste it on anything you like. A more powerful CPU and GPU for example, cooled by thermoelectric cooling of course. The only downside of green electricity is the amount of neodymium needed by the generators.
    germany do have officially studies about the cost of nuclear power in the same conditions that all other power plants the nuclear power cost 67€ per 1kwh!

    no not cent not 0,67€ full euro 67 € EURO! SixtySEVEN euro per kilo watt hours !

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    Cost analysis I last read includes link (sorry, in finnish). Cost for final disposition is about twice the price of fuel (uranium). And combined they are about same than build cost for reactor with 40 years life. This sums to about 35€/MWh. Cost for wind energy is twice that. So we are surely reading different analysis.

    You should definitely think of relocating if handful of politicians can do that where you are living.
    Germany prove the real costs of nuclear power in the same conditions and its 67,30€ per 1kwh!

    here an article about this study: http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/2/149824

    READ it right IN THE SAME CONDITIONS! NO FAKE THERE your numbers are only FAKE!

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    We shouldn't even be discussing wind energy until there's improvements with efficiency. It's useless.As a few others here have said, the output and efficiency is well below all other 'renewable' / green energies. Wind gusts aren't enough in most cases and then wind mills aren't even moving and wind turbines are also useless. Wind requires backups in all cases. But, Q refuses to listen.
    all modern smart grid studies for Europe prove you wrong here.
    they use the wind energy to use the Norway water power plants as batteries in a smart grid.
    in a smart grid you DO HAVE FULL BACKUP FOR WIND POWER !

    but yes maybe you can't understand this fact.

    also calculate it with the EEG LAW price FORCE 0,05€ per 1kwh for wind +backup is cheaper than 67,30€ per 1 kwh nuclear power!
    i can prove this numbers !

    but yes maybe you can't understand this fact.



    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    Nuclear energy at least, has the best output and energy with least amount of CO2 in comparison.
    if you compare it to water power you are a liar. even wind in a smart grid is better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    The only downside is safety and consequences in cases of accident plus radiation effects etc. etc. It's not whether to move to another energy but when.
    and the high price for 67,30€ per 1kwh!



    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    Countries like Germany are sacrificing their economy with stupidity, trying to have an unreasonably rapid transfer to other energies, bailing out other countries and generally selling out their entire country for other political groups/politicians to profit.
    no the Goverment pay studies to calculate the cheapest and best solution.

    and a smart grid +wind power beats the 67,30€ per 1kwh nuclear power shit.



    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    Why are Germans so stupid?!?
    are you stupid?



    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    They need to wake up and realize that the politicians just put a guilt trip on them each time.
    hey german man learn to read german and read this : http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/2/149824

    then you realize that in the same conditions nuclear power is the power with the highest price !

    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    The other reasons for other energies are not based on efficiency or cost either, it's based on profits to corporations and the politicians in bed with them. Think of terms of contracts and who benefits most. Solar, wind etc. The Government gives generous contracts to foreign contractors to build these factories and they'll manufacture the parts and equipment.... it's big money. Then they gouge the customers and populace with higher energy bills and taxes. Wake up, man!
    LOL i say the same to you " Wake up, man!"

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberax View Post
    Not really, it doesn't cool the Earth, it just slows down GW a bit. But yes, you can achieve cooling effect with coal powerplants - just remove sulfur and particulate scrubbers.
    But then, you'd also get acid rains, cancer, asthma and other niceties. And that's not a conjecture, that's what had been happening before the pollution controls were enacted.
    i can prove your theorie wrong:

    more CO2 lets the plants grow faster means more food and more productivities and more cooling effect because of water stream from the plants and the plants storage more co2 into there material.
    More Dirty Air makes the plant grow faster up to 20% because the aerosol of dirtiness makes diffuse light and this let grow the plants faster.
    If you use more CO2 in air air conditioning you have a higher energy efficiency and you lost less other air conditioning gases and the other air conditioning gases are 1000 times more evil than CO2

    its much more effective to fight natural sources of methane and co2 for example the "kasastan door to hell" or the methane gas problem : http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?i...5bbackPid%5d=1 and methane gas is much more evil than co2. or this big methane Blow-out : http://www.vdi-nachrichten.com/artik...ordsee/48900/2

    if you start to control this you save more co2 and methane than the humans burn it.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post

    and you call me a eco-fundamentalist?
    do you read the theat? i vote for burn more coal without any filter to get more sulfur acid in the air and more aerosols of dirty air because then the plants grow faster
    and i post multible articles about dirty air and faster growing plants and clima cooling effect of sulfur in the air.
    and i also point out that more CO2 is better for us!
    No I call you an Idiot.

    Yes I have read many articles, including some about quick solutions to global warming, that include increased sulfur particles in the air, as well as soot and a few other types.
    But none of those work in the long term, just like your idiotic idea that burning more coal will help us overall (By long term I mean max 100 years).
    The negative effects of such ideas include, increased Global Warming after a period of cooling (CO2), drastic changes to weather patterns, more harsh and unpredictable weather (Sulfur), Increased acid rain, loss of plant and marine life due to lower pH levels in the environment, thus affecting animal life as well (Sulfur). More increase in health issues due to 'dirty' air causing lung issues/cancer.

    An even better idea would to be to switch coal energy to nuclear/renewable (divided appropriately for efficiency/reliability), capture and burn any methane that escapes the ice layers (alot better than coal) and stop cutting down the damn forests instead. Creating more forests would actually help us more than any of your stupid lets pollute more to cool the earth ideas, which are short sited.

    Your point is like saying; For a depressed person taking drugs is a good idea because it makes us feel better, when in the long run we end up worse than if we actually tried to solve the problem.

    PS. Your article about the 67.3 Euro specifically stated that the insurance premium per Kw/h raised from 0.14 Euro to 67.3 Euro. From what I gathered, that would be the cost if all the
    (insured) premiums on Germany's Nuclear Reactors that had to be paid ifthey were all destroyed in an attack to cause a meltdown.

    We already have more damm CO2 in the atmosphere than before, lets not add more.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeealpal View Post
    No I call you an Idiot.
    Because what? I'm guilty because i read many different kind of articles about this tropic?
    Or I'm guilty because i do have arguments based of sources with physical,technical,juridical and scientific background?
    Maybe I'm Guilty because i do not fall into your Mainstream stereotyped thinking trap?

    "But none of those work in the long term"

    you are wrong here because: (the answer is also the answer of the next part)

    "Yes I have read many articles, including some about quick solutions to global warming, that include increased sulfur particles in the air, as well as soot and a few other types."

    You can do that quick solutions all the time again and again all time now and in the Future.

    So you are a Liar and it works for a long term!


    "just like your idiotic idea that burning more coal will help us overall (By long term I mean max 100 years)."

    sure burning more coal will help Germany to build up there green energy industries.


    Quote Originally Posted by zeealpal View Post
    The negative effects of such ideas include, increased Global Warming after a period of cooling (CO2), drastic changes to weather patterns, more harsh and unpredictable weather (Sulfur), Increased acid rain, loss of plant and marine life due to lower pH levels in the environment, thus affecting animal life as well (Sulfur). More increase in health issues due to 'dirty' air causing lung issues/cancer.
    and much more from the fairy tale book

    And all my studies commissioned by the German government which prove the price of 67,30€ per 1kwh energy and the fact that a modern nuclear power plant pollute 48MW of heat because the worst efficiency of 4% and the multiple prove of health issues due the nuclear power waste and nuclear power plant and the Dirty air of plutonium waste because of a super maximum credible nuclear accident.

    It is an balance of arguments and the Germans chose the way without Nuclear power plants.

    "An even better idea would to be to switch coal energy to nuclear"

    LOL read it again: And all my studies commissioned by the German government which prove the price of 67,30€ per 1kwh energy and the fact that a modern nuclear power plant pollute 48MW of heat because the worst efficiency of 4% and the multiple prove of health issues due the nuclear power waste and nuclear power plant and the Dirty air of plutonium waste because of a super maximum credible nuclear accident.

    "/renewable (divided appropriately for efficiency/reliability),"

    wow you are so clever! thats the German plan. They only need coal as a bridge technology.

    "capture and burn any methane that escapes the ice layers (alot better than coal)"

    hey wow thats why the KFW-Bank supports 'Gas and steam combined cycle power plant with heat and power'

    because the Germans already know that.


    "and stop cutting down the damn forests instead."

    Germany do not use 70% of all commercial forests.
    this means you have the national parks of wood without cutting +70% of the hole rest.
    this means Germany only use 10-20% of there forest (this is not a joke)

    this means the Germans do have many wood for the world war 3 (this is a joke)

    "Creating more forests would actually help us more than"

    Germany is to small to do that. but if you cut it for solar power plants you can improve the efficiency of the usage from 1% to 45%

    "Your point is like saying; For a depressed person taking drugs is a good idea because it makes us feel better, when in the long run we end up worse than if we actually tried to solve the problem."

    Sure my point is to use more drugs for depressed person and if he chose the right one then in the long run it will be better than ever without any negative effect.
    for example if you use GBL as a drug against your depression then it is so healthy that a study commissioned by the German government point out you life 10% longer than a normal human without any negative effect!

    sure you don't believe me but i have the source: ↑ NTP Study Reports TR-406 Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of γ-Butyrolactone (CAS No. 96-48-0) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies) oder Cognitive Enhancement Research Institute Discussion.

    so your point is complete pointless and you are wrong in drugs!


    "PS. Your article about the 67.3 Euro specifically stated that the insurance premium per Kw/h raised from 0.14 Euro to 67.3 Euro. From what I gathered, that would be the cost if all the
    (insured) premiums on Germany's Nuclear Reactors that had to be paid ifthey were all destroyed in an attack to cause a meltdown."

    other people here in the forum claim a price of 35€ per MEGA WATT hour means 0,035 per KWh!
    even of you calculate with 0,14 for an "normal" insurance without any premium you are much more expensiv than 0,035€ per KWh
    0,14+0,035= 0,175€ without disposal the nuclear waste!
    and now magic magic magic magic the EEG LAW force the Solar power plants to sell there power for an price of 0,16€
    magic wonder.... solar power is cheaper than nuclear power in Germany with the same conditions!
    because every solar power plant do have a FULL Premium insurance PLUS full disposal of the waste!


    this prove you are a Liar with your Nuclear power bullshit!


    Quote Originally Posted by zeealpal View Post
    We already have more damm CO2 in the atmosphere than before, lets not add more.
    my point of view is that the nuclear power plant way is wrong! commercially and ecologically and in health!
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 10-03-2011 at 08:41 PM.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arctic circle, Finland
    Posts
    282

    Default

    I hate when you write carbon dioxide CO2, It should be write CO2(not pointed to any individual).

    Worst known greenhouse effect is on Venus. The main fears of CO2 emissions is that it will eventually increase global warming in state when permafrost from Siberia melt and release too much methane gas to atmosphere. If the greenhouse effect reach the state where methane is the most effecting greenhouse gas on atmosphere, cooling planet will be very difficult(one option is to explode enough nukes to get lot of dust to atmosphere and coming nuclear winter should do the trick or erupt from super volcano).

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Q, if you read my damn post PROPERLY instead of arguing like a lunatic you will see that I was arguing AGAINST COAL power, and suggesting that ANY alternative is better than coal, given the environmental, lack of resources and health issues with coal. I was also arguing that Increased CO2 Emissions will be bad, as the post above this said.

    I am saying that solar/wind/hydro/nuclear power is better than Coal. And I'm sorry, but linking articles these days barely counts for shit, I have read articles by 'qualified' scientists and government bodies say the exact opposite to each other, based on different interpretations and calculations from the evidence gathered.

    Apart from that, I now see why others find it hopeless arguing with you, have a good day Sir

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Q, Also, it might mean nothing to you, but obviously you do think about things and have your own opinions/ideas, and while I might disagree, insulting you has nothing to do with it, and I apologies for that

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •