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

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-25-2011, 02:49 PM
huhn_m

Muahahahah!

So the efficiency of Solar Power is 0% because 99.9999% percent is lost to space, because earth does not receive all thermal radiation generated by the sun. Your arguments are riddiculus.

And BTW Reprocessing does not just mean MOX. You can also reprocess by just reusing the Uranium parts in the fuel rods. But thankfully our then "green" government forbade reprocessing back in their days effectively increasing our waste problem.

Q, you should really read up on the things you talk about. And, I call your bluff: Show me the statistics that say Solar / Wind is more efficient. That takes into account the mining and reprocessing of seldom earths that are generating huge amounts of environmental damage in the areas they are mined in (mainly china).

Those "Regenerative Energies" are not regenerative, since they need elements for their turbines and panels, that are very seldom on earth and, should we really try to cover all energy needs with "regenerative" or "renewable" Technologies, will run out faster then you can say "Peak-Renewable".
10-25-2011, 05:10 PM
Shielder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qaridarium

no you are wrong nuclear power stations don't run at night because the power is needed nuclear power stations only run at night because they can not shut down at night.
because of this all water storage power plants use this energy in the night.
but you lost energy because of this because you can not shut it down!

So let me get this straight, what you're saying is that there is no other electricity usage apart from the water storage plants?

Hmmm, why then, when my kids wake me up at 4am, can I turn on the lights? Why do the lights on the motorways stay lit? Why does a hospital stay open?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qaridarium

You are kidding only dangerous old Uran and Plutonium based nuclear power reactors need this modern thorium high-temperature nuclear power plants burn it in 1 round without reprocessing!
Also reprocessed fuel MOX Mixed oxide fuel are very high Dangerous. This means reprocessing is just a stupid idea.

Riiight. So the reprocessed fuel used in some of the UK, Japanese, French etc reactors is MOX is it? I hate to say this, but MOX has only just started to be used, and then only as a trial. I happen to know that Sizewell B is using reprocessed fuel and is also using fuel that was once Russian nuclear warheads. The substantiation of that idea took a while!:D But that's reprocessed. All of the UK AGRs have used reprocessed fuel for years. It's plain old Uranium oxide. No plutonium.

I like Huhn_m's idea about efficiency:

Now, to look at your idea of efficiency.

You want to take the entire fuel and try and get me to admit that nuclear reactors are only 1% efficient? Well, for a modern PWR, the fuel is used 3 times. 1st cycle it has an enrichment of about 5%. In it's second cycle some of the U-235 has been 'burnt' so the enrichment is probably of the order of 3%. For the third and last cycle, the enrichment has fallen to about 2% because of burnup. When the fuel is discharged, it has just about the same isotopic enrichment as natural Uranium. So, the usable fuel has gone from 5% to less than 1%. I call that about 80% efficiency.

Now, lets look at wind power.

The available 'fuel' is the wind correct?

So, assuming that there are 1,000,000 wind turbines in the world, their available surface area for the wind to act on (assuming 50m blades, and neglecting the spaces between the blades) is approximately, PI*50²= 7854m

That gives us a total surface area for 1,000,000 wind turbines of 7,854,000,000m².

Now, the radius of the earth is 6,378.1km. So the surface area of the earth is 4*PI*6,378,100²= 5.11E+14m².

So, negating the total volume of the atmosphere and just looking at the total fuel available to these million wind turbines (i.e. the total surface area of the earth that is acted upon by the wind), we have an efficiency of 7.854E+9 divided by 5.11E+14 = 1.537e-5 or 0.0015%

And that assumes perfect power output (100% load factor), no conversion losses, etc.

What were you saying about efficiency again?

Edit: Oh, I don't want to shock you, but I actually agree with you on the micro generation idea. Unfortunately, it isn't suitable for everyone. I live in a built up area and even if I could get the PV or wind turbine past the planning office, I wouldn't get anything like enough money back to pay for my investment, even given the 45p feed in tariff subsidy that the government would give me for every unit I exported to the grid. :(
10-25-2011, 09:46 PM
drewsky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panix

Yeah, instead they're building more coal plants. What a bunch of hypocrites! Ja, Green Energy indeed! :)

Turned off the Nuclear-Power-Stations is needed,but at the same time,wo should invent more green source to our environment:)
10-26-2011, 01:32 AM
Qaridarium

Quote:

Originally Posted by huhn_m

Muahahahah!
So the efficiency of Solar Power is 0% because 99.9999% percent is lost to space, because earth does not receive all thermal radiation generated by the sun. Your arguments are riddiculus.

You calculate based on the incoming solar energy and not the solar radiation at the sun from the originally transmitted solar radiation.
the incoming solar energy is 1-1,4KW per 1m²
Solar always means you can energy plant to plant also on the roof of a house. This means a Solar power plant only makes sense its more effective than the plant. The efficiency of wood is ~1% the efficiency of Hemp is ~2% Right now the efficiency of static solar power plants are ~24%

So you get what? Your arguments are riddiculus!

Because ALL Solar power plants Calculate with the 99.9999% percent is lost to space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by huhn_m

And BTW Reprocessing does not just mean MOX.

this was just an example but in fact all modern nuclear power plants do not need Reprocessing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by huhn_m

You can also reprocess by just reusing the Uranium parts in the fuel rods. But thankfully our then "green" government forbade reprocessing back in their days effectively increasing our waste problem.

In fact all Uran and Plutonium based nuclear power plants are pointless because: danger.
You can also burn the Uran and Plutonium in an Thorium based reactor without any Reprocessing.

Reprocessing is just stupid

[QUOTE=huhn_m;235201
Q, you should really read up on the things you talk about. And, I call your bluff: Show me the statistics that say Solar / Wind is more efficient. That takes into account the mining and reprocessing of seldom earths that are generating huge amounts of environmental damage in the areas they are mined in (mainly china).[/QUOTE]

Efficient in what? CO2? or money ?

Wind is more efficient in Money and Wind.
Nuclear power="90 -140 Gramm CO2 per 1kwh 1kwt"
http://www.stormsmith.nl/ i found it here: http://www.kreativrauschen.de/blog/2...der-kernkraft/

Wind power : "4 -13 Gramm CO2 per 1kwh 1kwt" 1) source: Prof. Dr. Helmut Alt, FH Aachen, www.buerger-fuer-technik.de,
Gleiche Zahlenwerte Süddeutsche Zeitung 10.03.2007

and the money? :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...DOE_report.gif

[QUOTE=huhn_m;235201
Those "Regenerative Energies" are not regenerative, since they need elements for their turbines and panels, that are very seldom on earth and, should we really try to cover all energy needs with "regenerative" or "renewable" Technologies, will run out faster then you can say "Peak-Renewable".[/QUOTE]

you are funny you can build solar power plants without any seldom stuff. and you can build wind power plants with "wood"

so your argument is just an "Hightech" problem in lowtech it works to.
10-26-2011, 02:18 AM
Qaridarium

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

So let me get this straight, what you're saying is that there is no other electricity usage apart from the water storage plants?

no wrong. i only point out that the Water storage power plant is not 100% efficient
you lost ~10% in this way 2 way cable lost and 1 water pump lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

Hmmm, why then, when my kids wake me up at 4am, can I turn on the lights? Why do the lights on the motorways stay lit? Why does a hospital stay open?

you can do the same with an updraft solar power plant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

Riiight. So the reprocessed fuel used in some of the UK, Japanese, French etc reactors is MOX is it? I hate to say this, but MOX has only just started to be used, and then only as a trial. I happen to know that Sizewell B is using reprocessed fuel and is also using fuel that was once Russian nuclear warheads. The substantiation of that idea took a while!:D But that's reprocessed. All of the UK AGRs have used reprocessed fuel for years. It's plain old Uranium oxide. No plutonium.

Right but the better way is: use Uran and Plutonium in an Thorium based reactor without any Reprocessing.
This is much more "SAVE"
but yes you Like it Danger its your mental thrill like sex without condom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

I like Huhn_m's idea about efficiency:

Huhn_m is just another ignorant person because:

"You calculate based on the incoming solar energy and not the solar radiation at the sun from the originally transmitted solar radiation.
the incoming solar energy is 1-1,4KW per 1m²
the efficiency of static solar power plants are ~24%
Because ALL Solar power plants Calculate with the 99.9999% percent is lost to space."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

Now, to look at your idea of efficiency.
You want to take the entire fuel and try and get me to admit that nuclear reactors are only 1% efficient? Well, for a modern PWR, the fuel is used 3 times. 1st cycle it has an enrichment of about 5%. In it's second cycle some of the U-235 has been 'burnt' so the enrichment is probably of the order of 3%. For the third and last cycle, the enrichment has fallen to about 2% because of burnup. When the fuel is discharged, it has just about the same isotopic enrichment as natural Uranium. So, the usable fuel has gone from 5% to less than 1%. I call that about 80% efficiency.

your last claim was to start with 100% now you start with 80%
your dream numbers just go away...

if we start with 12,5GW Nuclear-FUEL then 80% (your numbers) then we do have 10GW now we get 2GW electric (my number) then its 8GW my claim and your claim is 4,5GW

but your words: "Cooling pond heat: Look at the following plot of decay heat against time from trip.
You can see that 1 day after shut down, the fuel is generating 0.5% of the full power. After 10 days it is 0.2%. The decay of radioactive nuclides decreases exponentially, so 100 days after shutdown, the decay heat will be less than 0.05% of full power, i.e. 2.25MW. About the power from a moderately sized wind turbine."

and: "Maintenance heat? I'm assuming that you are talking about a statutory outage when the plant isn't generating? We call that load factor, which in a nuclear station is about 90%+."

and: "As for mining and refining activities,"

and: Off-Peak-Stoarge-power-plant-effiency lost

and: "Particle radiation [...lost...] The "lost generation" you are talking about is less than 1%,"

and: "What I don't understand is Approach and Shutdown. If you are talking about power raising, then that is a day or so of a 24 month power cycle. Hardly significant. It's the same with Shutdown. When there is an outage, it generally lasts less than a month, which is 1/24th or just over 4% of the time spent generating. So, assuming a perfect 100% power output, we have a load factor of at least 95%."

you get what? your dream number "4,5GW" are never serious

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

Now, lets look at wind power.
The available 'fuel' is the wind correct?
So, assuming that there are 1,000,000 wind turbines in the world, their available surface area for the wind to act on (assuming 50m blades, and neglecting the spaces between the blades) is approximately, PI*50²= 7854m
That gives us a total surface area for 1,000,000 wind turbines of 7,854,000,000m².
Now, the radius of the earth is 6,378.1km. So the surface area of the earth is 4*PI*6,378,100²= 5.11E+14m².
So, negating the total volume of the atmosphere and just looking at the total fuel available to these million wind turbines (i.e. the total surface area of the earth that is acted upon by the wind), we have an efficiency of 7.854E+9 divided by 5.11E+14 = 1.537e-5 or 0.0015%
And that assumes perfect power output (100% load factor), no conversion losses, etc.
What were you saying about efficiency again?

you really don't understand how to calculate wind power plants.
you start with 100% lost if you don't use wind power plants.
If you use wind power you drop down the 100% lost and for every 0,0000001% you get a big number of energy output.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

Edit: Oh, I don't want to shock you, but I actually agree with you on the micro generation idea.

wow nice ;) i do have a micro power plant! 5,5KW electric natural gas powered 90% efficiency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

Unfortunately, it isn't suitable for everyone.

sure it is there are 1kw electric micro power plants (stirling dachs)
and the tiniest of all 0,5-1KW electric "sanevo WhisperGen"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

I live in a built up area and even if I could get the PV or wind turbine past the planning office, I wouldn't get anything like enough money back to pay for my investment, even given the 45p feed in tariff subsidy that the government would give me for every unit I exported to the grid. :(

you really need professional help...

maybe the sanevo WhisperGen is the right power plant for you?

http://sanevo.de/img/34.jpg
http://sanevo.de/img/41.jpg
http://sanevo.de/img/42.jpg

only 3,400 € in Great-Britain
10-26-2011, 07:10 AM
Shielder

You know, I'm rapidly losing the will to live...

I have never said that nuclear power is 100% efficient. I have said that the AP1000 has a thermal efficincy of 30% and the EPR has a thermal efficiency of 37%.

(Decay heat is negligable, otherwise they'd use decay heat as a power source.)

I have used the standard equations to calculate the thermal efficiency of these plants (see your beloved Wikipedia's entry on thermal efficiency for the equations).

I have finally had enough of this thread. Your initial premise, that Germany is still an exporter of electricity, (in your initial post) has been demonstrated to be completely wrong. Your theories on power efficiency may have merit, I'm just having difficulty getting through all of the LSD inspired posts you are writing.

In short, I am finally getting out of this thread. I think the final straw was you trying to get 12.5GW of heat out of a 4.5GWth reactor. Have you finally rewritten the laws of physics?

I could go on, but you'd only spout some drivel about your 90% efficient boiler (yet another world record! Why haven't you sold this to the world?) and how you can get more heat/wind/power out of a power station/wind turbine than is scientifically possible.

In short, you're an LSD fuelled idiot who probably shouldn't be allowed into the real world. You might harm yourself.

Adios all, I'm off!
10-26-2011, 08:05 AM
Qaridarium

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

You know, I'm rapidly losing the will to live...

maybe you should consume LSD to fix your Suicidal thoughts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

I have never said that nuclear power is 100% efficient. I have said that the AP1000 has a thermal efficincy of 30% and the EPR has a thermal efficiency of 37%.

i prove both numbers "30%" and "37%" wrong!
Also i prove you wrong in CO2 Polluting wind energy is much better in polluting less CO2 and also WIND is cheaper!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

(Decay heat is negligable, otherwise they'd use decay heat as a power source.)

Nothing is "negligable" only ignorance people arguing in that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

I have used the standard equations to calculate the thermal efficiency of these plants

no you use the standard equations to calculate a coal or gas power plant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

(see your beloved Wikipedia's entry on thermal efficiency for the equations).

Only the efficiency based on the FUEL is relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

I have finally had enough of this thread. Your initial premise, that Germany is still an exporter of electricity, (in your initial post) has been demonstrated to be completely wrong.

i don't think so. in the end of the year 2011 Germany will be in the plus side and in 2012 Germany will also be in the plus side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

Your theories on power efficiency may have merit

O thank you.. and maybe they build updraft tornado power plants on top of every nuclear power plant in other countries than Germany ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

, I'm just having difficulty getting through all of the LSD inspired posts you are writing.

people write to me that i do not write other stuff after i consume LSD the first time. And this "Nuclear power plant tropic" here is older than my LSD article.

In fact there was no LSD inspired posts here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

In short, I am finally getting out of this thread. I think the final straw was you trying to get 12.5GW of heat out of a 4.5GWth reactor. Have you finally rewritten the laws of physics?

i just use your numbers your words "80% of the fuel"
in your words this means 2GW electric+4,5GW=80%
in your words 100% = 8,125GW

your personal view do only difference to my view by 1,875GW

and these 1,875GW are there in your words:

"but your words: "Cooling pond heat: Look at the following plot of decay heat against time from trip.
You can see that 1 day after shut down, the fuel is generating 0.5% of the full power. After 10 days it is 0.2%. The decay of radioactive nuclides decreases exponentially, so 100 days after shutdown, the decay heat will be less than 0.05% of full power, i.e. 2.25MW. About the power from a moderately sized wind turbine."
and: "Maintenance heat? I'm assuming that you are talking about a statutory outage when the plant isn't generating? We call that load factor, which in a nuclear station is about 90%+."
and: "As for mining and refining activities,"
and: Off-Peak-Stoarge-power-plant-effiency lost
and: "Particle radiation [...lost...] The "lost generation" you are talking about is less than 1%,"
and: "What I don't understand is Approach and Shutdown. If you are talking about power raising, then that is a day or so of a 24 month power cycle. Hardly significant. It's the same with Shutdown. When there is an outage, it generally lasts less than a month, which is 1/24th or just over 4% of the time spent generating. So, assuming a perfect 100% power output, we have a load factor of at least 95%.""

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

I could go on, but you'd only spout some drivel about your 90% efficient boiler (yet another world record! Why haven't you sold this to the world?)

i do have a "nationally recognized expert opinions" on that 90%

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

and how you can get more heat/wind/power out of a power station/wind turbine than is scientifically possible.

you don't get my point! there is not any electric power out of wind if there is no wind power plant then it is 100% lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shielder

In short, you're an LSD fuelled idiot who probably shouldn't be allowed into the real world. You might harm yourself.
Adios all, I'm off!

you are the idiot this threat is older than my first ever LSD consume.

But yes you prefer to blame other people instead of being right on tropic.
10-29-2011, 01:23 AM
huhn_m

"So you get what? Your arguments are riddiculus!"

Lol ... got it? That was the whole point. But what you did obviously not get was, that this was supposed to show you your insane chain of argument by a comparison.

I agree with shielder. This is just ridiculous and I will also pull out of this thread. Reading your post makes me ashamed of being a German.

If you post links to "stupid" sources, then I shall use them:

http://www.buerger-fuer-technik.de/b...mit_solar.html

(Btw. this is totally stupid and argumentation unworthy of even looking at, but just for the sake of discrediting your source buerger-fuer-technik)

" this was just an example but in fact all modern nuclear power plants do not need Reprocessing."

Of course they don't, stupid. Just as paper does not "need" reprocessing and a paper producer does not "need" to reprocess old paper.
Strange they do it anyways.... Maybe it HAS its merits ... namely increasing fuel (or in the case of paper resource efficiency).

But it just makes no sense to argue with you. You have shown throughout this thread that you are immune to argument. Have fun living in your simple, flat earth world
10-31-2011, 04:37 AM
Qaridarium

Quote:

Originally Posted by huhn_m

If you post links to "stupid" sources, then I shall use them:
http://www.buerger-fuer-technik.de/b...mit_solar.html
(Btw. this is totally stupid and argumentation unworthy of even looking at, but just for the sake of discrediting your source buerger-fuer-technik)

This website isn't my source i only found a good source by searching on this website i only link to this website to show were i found my source.
websites can have good parts and bad parts.

" this was just an example but in fact all modern nuclear power plants do not need Reprocessing."
Of course they don't, stupid. Just as paper does not "need" reprocessing and a paper producer does not "need" to reprocess old paper.
Strange they do it anyways.... Maybe it HAS its merits ... namely increasing fuel (or in the case of paper resource efficiency).[/QUOTE]

You really don't understand my argument and hey its a PRO nuclear power argument also because modern nuclear power-plants do not need reprocessing.
If you burn uran and plutonium in an good Thorium reactor you can get a high burning rate of the fuel without reprocessing.
because a Thorium reactor do have a self-reprocessing function in his inner functionality. Thorium reactors make uran and burn it and also plutonium and burn it its a more complex fast breeder technology process.
you can read this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium...and_challenges

Remember the Chernobyl reactor and Fukushima reactor are uran/plutonium based Reactors.
In my point of view all uran/plutonium reactors with the need of reprocessing are obsolete.

and the Germans do it first :"The German THTR-300 was the first commercial power station powered almost entirely with Thorium. "

Quote:

Originally Posted by huhn_m

But it just makes no sense to argue with you. You have shown throughout this thread that you are immune to argument. Have fun living in your simple, flat earth world

arguing against knowledge is just ignorance.
10-31-2011, 10:31 PM
Desti

http://www.chuden.co.jp/english/reso...dly_pho_01.gif
http://www.chuden.co.jp/english/init...dly/index.html

Nuclear power is the most environment friendly kind of energy. It's the safest form of energy with the least number of victims worldwide and it's the only energy technology, that can be used everywhere.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page