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

  • #71
    Originally posted by ssam View Post
    "4MWh": that's enough to run a high end desktop for 1 year, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4+mwh+%2F+year
    I assume that someone got the units wrong somewhere.

    here is a good table of relative doses from various things. basically you get radiation from a lot of places all the time. big doses are very harmful, no doubt about that.
    https://www.xkcd.com/radiation/
    hi i'm happy you found this but you are not the first one

    the right number is 4 Terra Watt Time/Hora 4TWh/4TWt in 6 month.
    means 8 Terra Watt Time in 1 Year.

    and 8 Terra Watt time is a big number isn't it?


    Originally posted by ssam View Post
    the effects of low doses are much less understood.
    you are right. but plants for example grow faster if they get low doses.



    Originally posted by ssam View Post
    radiation policy is based on the (unproven) linear not threshold model, which is a worst case and assumes that the body has not defence against radiation. most studies of people who have received doses a small amount over background show no increase in health problems.
    you are right here to its unproven. in Germany its proved that very tiny dosage makes child ill they get blood cancer.
    this means 30km around a nuclear power station must be a child free zone
    some countries do have this 30km zone. Germany have not.
    in my knowledge you can only call a nuclear power station save if there is a empty 30km zone around there and its not Uran/plutonium based and its fully driven by robots.

    But the Humans are not so clever to make it so.

    Originally posted by ssam View Post
    if you want zero health risk from energy production then the only answer is no energy.
    LOL you are wrong.. just build a solar updraft tower.




    Originally posted by ssam View Post
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html even wind and solar kill more people than nuclear. and fossil fuels kill a stupid number of people, each there are fires and explosions at refineries, oil rigs, pipelines, mines etc, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...line_accidents , even just this year in the UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14968378 , http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15083044 , http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-s...wales-13660365 and much worse elsewhere http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14879401
    air pollution kills millions of people per year.
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/facts.../en/index.html
    you are right but you don't check some techniques like the solar updraft tower.

    and yes you can drive a nuclear power plant save if you drive it only with robots and with a 30km empty zone around it and if you drive it without uran/plutonium. Show me this Nuclear power plant ? you can't?

    thats the problem of the nuclear power companies they give a shit about safety!
    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by virta View Post
      Silly conversation (silly enough for me to register and join ). There is no real economical alternative for nuclear power. One country can decide to not build more nuclear power or even shutdown reactors they have. But this tends to lead to buying nuclear produced power from abroad.
      LOL are you blind? this tropic is about shut down 8 Nuclear reactors and export 4TWt !!!!

      with this number Germany can shut down two more nuclear reactors.




      Originally posted by virta View Post
      You can plan to build more fossil fuel plants, but sooner or later that leads to energy price going up. Politicians have then two choices. Look industry and jobs moving abroad or start buying nuclear produced power from abroad.
      the plan is not to do that. the plan is to build a european smart grid one of this projekt is this:http://www.norger.biz/norger/ Norway to Germany and the Sweden to Germany one http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Cable
      and the overall European smart grid: http://www.smartgrids.eu/
      Germany plan to drop coal and gas and nuclear.
      the plan is to consume Norwegian water power and Sweden water power and use them like a battery for German Wind power.
      Germany spend now 25 000 000 000? on new cables and 400 000 000 000 on green power power plants.






      Originally posted by virta View Post
      Fact is that energy use per capita is and will be rising. And nuclear energy is only real way to cope with that. Small amounts of hydropower made in scandinavia (I'm from finland) doesn't really solve anything. Sweden has now been shutting down their nuclear power for 30 years and I guess they continue doing that for next 30 or 130 years. And increase buying nuclear power from abroad.
      Radiation effects is strange topic. There were 70000 people working in cleaning up Pripyat in 1985. 30 of them died from radiation sickness very soon. After that there is no statistical difference in amount of cancer deaths between them and rest of the population.

      i'm sure you don't understand the smart grid concept of the EU the plan is to trade green energy around Europe.
      Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by zeealpal View Post
        On topic: I still think nuclear power is the most viable medium (few hundred years) term solution to our upcoming lack of fossil fuels, and the easiest way to reduce carbon emission. Its also the onyl one we would have any hope of implementing in a reasonable amount of time.
        you don't want pollute co2 because it warms the earth up.
        But your nuclear power plant do have a 4% efficiency means it warms the Earth up for 96%
        means a 2MW nuclear power station produce 48 MW exothermic heat.

        are you really so naive ? you can not cool down the erath if you pollute 48MEGA-WATT heat for every Nuclear Power plant!

        Originally posted by zeealpal View Post
        Also, it doesnt help Germany that alot of there tax payers money is going to supporting the EU. My mother is German, my father British, so I have absolutely nothing against Germany, I've been there and think it is a beautiful place
        no i think the germans should pay more! the german should pay for an KFW-Bank in greek to help them out.


        Originally posted by zeealpal View Post
        And if any one could build proper energy sources, nuclear or others, Germany could probably do it best
        sure i also think so.
        Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          you don't want pollute co2 because it warms the earth up.
          But your nuclear power plant do have a 4% efficiency means it warms the Earth up for 96%
          means a 2MW nuclear power station produce 48 MW exothermic heat.
          That's just stupid reasoning. What ever heat we are creating is lost to space. IF we don't build up co2 to atmosphere that reflects heat back. If we build that co2 there it really doesn't matter how much energy we use. Sun is source of heat, not humans. co2 changes climate. Shouldn't be that hard.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by virta View Post
            That's just stupid reasoning. What ever heat we are creating is lost to space. IF we don't build up co2 to atmosphere that reflects heat back. If we build that co2 there it really doesn't matter how much energy we use. Sun is source of heat, not humans. co2 changes climate. Shouldn't be that hard.
            i can prove you wrong very easy: if we put a Tsar-Bomb every 35km around the world then the heat is lost in space?

            or we are all death ? i think whatever you do all energy is never lost in space means we are death.

            and this is the same for nuclear reactors if you pollute 48 MEGA-WATT heat for every single nuclear power plant you don't need co2 to heat the earth up the nuclear power plants do the same without CO2!
            Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

            Comment


            • #76
              Sun heats earth ~100 000 times what human does at the moment. I still don't see your point in heating when using "less efficient" nuclear power. If dissipation of heat to space is halved because of co2 that tends to make a difference. 1% dissipation change is big difference there compared to nuclear power.
              Last edited by virta; 10-01-2011, 12:14 PM.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                you are right here to its unproven. in Germany its proved that very tiny dosage makes child ill they get blood cancer.
                this means 30km around a nuclear power station must be a child free zone
                some countries do have this 30km zone. Germany have not.
                there also plenty of studies that find no link.
                http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/201...r-nuke-plants/
                http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4077298.stm

                if the cancer increase was caused by radiation, why is there no increase in cancer in places with higher background radiation? there are plenty of places with higher natural backgrounds than you would get inside a nuclear power station site.

                if you are really upset about risks to health then why don't you try to get cars banned. car accidents kill a million people a year. or get the coal power station shut down.

                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                LOL you are wrong.. just build a solar updraft tower.

                you are right but you don't check some techniques like the solar updraft tower.
                you cant do any large scale construction work with out deaths and injuries. solar updraft tower looks like to get 200 MW you need a 1 km tower and a 7 km diameter (figures from wikipedia). that is very large scale. so you need 5 of those to compete with a single reactor (some power plants have 4 or 5 reactors). its not very clear if this is 200 MW averaged over a day, or the peak in full sunlight, if its the former then you would need twice as many. so you will also need to clear a pretty large amount of land to build these. Germany would need something like 800 of them (wolfram alpha say that germany produces 170 GW of energy). Not sure about the UK, we get a fair amount less sunlight than you.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                  the plan is not to do that. the plan is to build a european smart grid one of this projekt is this:
                  the plan is to consume Norwegian water power and Sweden water power and use them like a battery for German Wind power.
                  Germany spend now 25 000 000 000€ on new cables and 400 000 000 000 on green power power plants.
                  You don't seem to understand difference between grid and powerplant. Grid doesn't create power. You cannot add more hydropower in scandinavia. It's allready all in use. And it currently provides power for ~10M people. And that's all it can do. That's very small amount of power. And because power use is getting higher every year, it every year provides power to fewer people. Nuclear power is only alternative to burning oil or gas. Everything else in Gigawatt scale is just fiction.

                  What you can do with grid is bring cheap nuclear power from russia. In finland we are not very happy with that solution, so there is projects going for building more nuclear power. I'm all for that. Just hope that they build them to north where there is less population.

                  Hydropower is good "battery" to use with nuclear power to even out usage spikes.
                  Last edited by virta; 10-01-2011, 12:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by ssam View Post
                    in Germany we have different results they prove that child's get blood cancer in 30km around a nuclear power plant.
                    They also prove a high cancer rate on all humans around Nuclear waste storages

                    Originally posted by ssam View Post
                    if the cancer increase was caused by radiation, why is there no increase in cancer in places with higher background radiation? there are plenty of places with higher natural backgrounds than you would get inside a nuclear power station site.
                    http://www.hna.de/nachrichten/nieder...l-1050698.html
                    here you can read that in Germany the cancer statistic prove that the "asse" Nuclear waste storage makes the people ill.
                    the Germans prove this multiple times.
                    you can't make a nuclear waste storage save!




                    Originally posted by ssam View Post
                    if you are really upset about risks to health then why don't you try to get cars banned. car accidents kill a million people a year. or get the coal power station shut down.
                    you know the Germans? we do have the T?V we do have the most aggressive safety system against car holders around the world.
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technis...wachungsverein
                    Technischer ?berwachungs Verrein: Technial monitoring association
                    they are everywhere! and every care need a full T?V check every 2 years by LAW!
                    Its the most aggressive system against the car owners world wide!
                    also the Police make stops of car's and let the T?V check the cards.

                    again its the most aggressive system world wide!



                    Originally posted by ssam View Post
                    you cant do any large scale construction work with out deaths and injuries. solar updraft tower looks like to get 200 MW you need a 1 km tower and a 7 km diameter (figures from wikipedia). that is very large scale. so you need 5 of those to compete with a single reactor
                    you don't get the cleverness of the updraft towers the clue is you can use it to produce food you use it as a greenhouse.
                    so you don't lost 7km diameters you just do have a 7km diameter greenhouse.
                    also you don't get the cleverness in combination a updraft tower with a downdraft wind Energy tower
                    then you double your energy output.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...28downdraft%29


                    Originally posted by ssam View Post
                    (some power plants have 4 or 5 reactors). its not very clear if this is 200 MW averaged over a day, or the peak in full sunlight, if its the former then you would need twice as many. so you will also need to clear a pretty large amount of land to build these. Germany would need something like 800 of them (wolfram alpha say that germany produces 170 GW of energy). Not sure about the UK, we get a fair amount less sunlight than you.
                    you don't understand the updraft tower the 200MW is day and night without peak.

                    in my knowledge Germanys highest peak in consuming is 92GW so your wolfram alpha is wrong.

                    the 170GW is the absolute theoretical peak of all power plants and storage power plants.
                    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by virta View Post
                      You don't seem to understand difference between grid and powerplant. Grid doesn't create power.
                      thats the trick! they calculate they don't need more power plants to get 35% of green energy they just need a better grid system. this is only valid because we do have to many power plants right now.




                      Originally posted by virta View Post
                      You cannot add more hydropower in scandinavia. It's allready all in use.
                      you don't get the cleverness. they don't wana build more hydropower systems they want use german power systems.
                      and they use the Hydropower systems as a storage power plant.
                      in simple words: they SHUT DOWN the hydropower power plants! and consume GERMAN energy.
                      Then if the german green energy fail they Turn on the Hydroenergy systems to backup!

                      really i can not use more simple words for you.






                      Originally posted by virta View Post
                      What you can do with grid is bring cheap nuclear power from russia. In finland we are not very happy with that solution, so there is projects going for building more nuclear power. I'm all for that. Just hope that they build them to north where there is less population.
                      Hydropower is good "battery" to use with nuclear power to even out usage spikes.
                      wow you are soooo clever.. but right now they can't use the hydrogen power stations as a battery because no grid cable system is there.
                      Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X