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

1. Senior Member
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
Germany
Posts
5,474
Originally Posted by Shielder
Oh, there are so many errors in the arguments here that I had to log in and respond...
Firstly, when you are talking about power output, there are three units that you need to look at:
kW - kilowatt, 1000 Watts which is 1 unit of electricity. Usually equated to a 1 bar electric fire.
kWt - thermal kilowatt. I.e. the thermal power generated by a power station
kWe - electrical kilowatt. I.e. the electrical power generated by the power station
Now, if we ignore the first one (it isn't really needed for this discussion) the ratio between kWt and kWe shows just how efficient a thermal power station is.
you don't read my posts because if so then you know i already know this.
and sure i make some errors in writing no body is perfect but i already agree the wrong points.
now you are the 4. guy with that point. thank you very much

Originally Posted by Shielder
All thermal power stations operate at a thermal efficiency of between 30-40%. Nuclear power stations are no exception. They operate at a thermal efficiency of between 30-40%, not 4%. :lol:
here you are wrong because a nuclear power plant isn't a normal thermal operate power station.
the 4% is calculated based of the energy is contained in the radioactive material.
a nuclear power plant also lost energy by radio waves. not only heat and you only calculate the efficiency of the thermal heat!
i calculate ALL energy in the full efficiency.

you can read this on wikipedia the full efficiency of a nuclear power plant is 4% some special do have 8-9%

Originally Posted by Shielder
sure much more than I want to know.

Originally Posted by Shielder
We are surrounded by radiation all of the time.
sure but thats not the point the point is that German studies show high cancer rate in asse(germany) and and near by every nuclear power plan in Germany the studies show that child's get blood cancer.
and your " We are surrounded by radiation all of the time." chance nothing here.

Originally Posted by Shielder
The legal limit in the UK for a member of the public is 1milliSv from all sources of radiation in a power plant. To put this into perspective, the average dose received by the UK population is 2.5milliSv per person per year. In practice, the doses to the public form any station in the UK are much lower than even the limit I quoted above.
i know that all legal limits are wrong because civil studies prove it wrong in Germany. and i know that all milliSv measured results are invalid in argumenting because there are different milliSv measured results means its the "frequency" some frequency are very dangerous even its low in milliSv and the official Sievert list do not contain all frequencies and kinds of waves and particles.

now what? bullshit bingo starts ?

yes it starts:

"Now, flying... 1milliSv = 1000 microSv correct? On a plane trip (for 5 hours) the dose rate expereinced by this guy was 3.8microSv/hr. To exceed the legal limit for a member of the public, you would have to fly for 250 hours (give or take). Last time I looked, an airline pilot or member of the cabin crew weren't classed as radiation workers, so flying for 1000 hours per year (a guess, but probably a good one) means that they are nearly 4 times over the legal radiation limit! When was the last time a plane fell out of the sky because the pilot got 'radiation poisoning' "

and it ends... ok.. thank you i know all this. and this all does not chance anything of my argumentation.

Originally Posted by Shielder
I also noticed that you said that nuclear plants have no clinical usage, where do you think the radioisotopes for chemotherapy come from?
nice try but in my knowledge the chemotherapy is a chemical way to destroy cancer not the "radioactive wave" way to kill cancer.
but yes i ignore this for you. sure you are right you need nuclear reactors for medical use but you don't need a nuclear power plant.

Originally Posted by Shielder
Oh, and solar power has a maximum power output of 1.4kW per metre.
this is wrong because the maximum efficiency record is 45% so right now with your number the max power output is 630watt.

Originally Posted by Shielder
That is the maximum flux we receive from the sun. So, to provide the power of a modern nuclear station we would need 1,200,000 sq metres of solar panels. (Modern EPR has an electrical power output of 1700MW, divide that by 1.4kW to get the size of an equivalent solar station). This also assumes that the panels are 100% efficient and the sun is directly overhead.
1700MW = 1700 000 000 watt /630watt= 2 698 412,7mē

Originally Posted by Shielder
What about wind energy? Well, that is only 30% efficient due to variability in the wind velocity. The wind doesn't always blow and when it does, it doesn't always blow at the most optimum speed for the turbines.
this is right but its cheap by EEG law 0,05 so you can drive methane synthesis and use this to tun cars or storage power plants.

Originally Posted by Shielder
Tidal is the best option for green power imo,
Tidal power plants are not an option for Germany.

but yes i like it

Originally Posted by Shielder
it is even more expensive than nuclear
how much? Germans calculate 100 per 1kwh nuclear power. (same conditions means 100% insurance+100% waste disposal)

i think your Tidal power plant can beat 100 per 1kwh!

Originally Posted by Shielder
and will cause vast changes to the local ecosystems (barrages, large pools etc) due to reduction/changes in the tidal flows.
(ironie) But now I'm sad (/ironie off)

Originally Posted by Shielder
For a thermal plant, nuclear is really the best option. Yes there is the waste problem to think about and deal with, but green power options suffer from low energy density and low efficiency. They are also expensive.
If you've got any questions, let me know and I'll try and answer them.
Sure i do have questions we germans do have a big problem in asse with the Nuclear power waste and water a lot of water comes into the asse and the water goes back to the people and make them ill what is your suggestion ?

And also we germans do have a subsidies problem with the nuclear power because the german zivil citizen pay the 100% insurance+100% waste disposal this means the german citizen pay 99,70 per 1kw what is your Suggestion about this ?

2. Junior Member
Join Date
Oct 2011
Posts
2
do not fail in produce energy alternatively.
I am not sure what you mean with your comment but I think harnessing the power of solar energy will bring peace for the world and a boost for economy. If someone shows it can be done it will spread rapidly.

3. Senior Member
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
Germany
Posts
5,474
Originally Posted by virta
I can, but rest of the worlds population can't. That's simply not possible in scale. Even rest of europe can't. Even germany can't. It would, if it could.
Adolf Hitler can drive a biomass to liquid plant to drive the army in world war 2 but Germany today can not drive a methane synthesis plant ? are you joking?

Originally Posted by virta
And I couldn't probably pay rest of the bills with that plan
There are no alternatives.
Even Adolf Hitler do it with biomass to liquid and there systems do only have 50-60% efficiency modern systems like the German Alphakat system do have 80%
you can drive the hole industries only on diesel from a alphakat biomass to liquid system.

but "There are no alternatives" you are really funny.

Originally Posted by virta
To backup your proposal do cost calculation for equivalent of 100litres of gasoline produced with that technology, and show me where I can buy it.
the german wikipedia do have this. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energie...ischer_Energie

Originally Posted by virta
I can show where you can buy nuclear reactor or fossil fuel power plant with 1GW output. That exists. Everything else is just talk.
i can show you a better solution to buy: http://www.alphakat.de/temp/index.php

then you can turn wood into diesel and you can drive diesel driven storage power plants.

Its 100% CO2 neutral.

4. Senior Member
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
Germany
Posts
5,474
Originally Posted by Shielder
What accident/disaster?
German cancer studies show the highest cancer rate in Germany is in Asse.

now is this a disaster or not?

Originally Posted by Shielder
It's a deep geologocal repository holding immobilised ILW and LLW. How is this a disaster? Yes, the mine will need shoring up/emptying, but that's hardly a disaster is it?
Or have I missed the mine collapsing and releasing all of the waste into the atmosphere/water table or killing millions of people because of subsidance?
sure you miss something you miss the studies about cancer in Asse They are dying like fly mosquitoes.

5. Senior Member
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
Germany
Posts
5,474
Originally Posted by virta
Actually fossil fuels are now burned in supercritical steam generators that raise efficiency up close to 50%. This technology will be used in nuclear power plants later, but they have slightly slower pace in taking new technology to use
And nuclear thermal efficiency is few percent worse than other fuels because of decay heat.
hey you super brain i can scan my official result of the measurements of my thermal power plant

it shows numbers like 89-92% and this without the re-condensing module.

6. Phoronix Member
Join Date
Sep 2011
Posts
52
Originally Posted by Shielder
which is nowhere near high enough to be supercritical.
Yes, those are current temperatures. It's just safety/reliability thing to keep pressure and temperature relatively low. Both could be higher to make water supercritical.

And yes, decay heat is small amount. My point was exactly that because it's released after normal operation it's not normally seen as part of thermal efficiency.
Last edited by virta; 10-04-2011 at 12:30 PM.

7. Phoronix Member
Join Date
Sep 2011
Posts
52
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
Adolf Hitler can drive a biomass to liquid plant to drive the army in world war 2 but Germany today can not drive a methane synthesis plant ? are you joking?
but "There are no alternatives" you are really funny. i can show you a better solution to buy: http://www.alphakat.de/temp/index.php
then you can turn wood into diesel and you can drive diesel driven storage power plants.Its 100% CO2 neutral.
Somehow you once again answer to question with something completely out of discussion. And totally forget what you 2 messages ago was "proposing" as a solution for energy production.

8. Phoronix Member
Join Date
Sep 2011
Posts
52
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
hey you super brain i can scan my official result of the measurements of my thermal power plant

it shows numbers like 89-92% and this without the re-condensing module.

93%

You just lost with 1%.
Last edited by virta; 10-04-2011 at 12:40 PM.

9. Phoronix Member
Join Date
Sep 2011
Posts
52
Originally Posted by Qaridarium
German cancer studies show the highest cancer rate in Germany is in Asse.
now is this a disaster or not?
Norway has 8th highest cancer rate in the world.
And no nuclear energy.

Australia is 3th.
No nuclear energy.

Is that disaster or not.

Denmark has highest rate of cancer in the world.
And it has highest amount of wind power.
=>Wind power creates cancer.
Last edited by virta; 10-04-2011 at 12:52 PM.

10. Senior Member
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
Germany
Posts
5,474
Originally Posted by Shielder
Hmmm, I'd have to disagree there. The temperature of the primary circuit in a PWR doesn't get high enough to use supercritical steam generators. A coal burner or gas burner will give you superheated steam at 500-600 degC, but a standard PWR will only give you coolant at a temp of 300degC at most, and that's only in the primary circuit, not the secondary circuit. The secondary circuit temperature is about 250-270degC (from memory) which is nowhere near high enough to be supercritical.

Decay heat??? Decay heat is only an issue once you've shut down the reactor. This is why you still need to provide cooling for a nuclear reactor after it is shut down. When at power, the contribution of decay heat is nothing compared to the operating power output.

Decay heat output is, at most, 1% of the rated power of a reactor, and then only in the minutes after shutdown. The heat generated by the decay of short lived nuclides declines at an exponential rate and is 0.1% of rated power after a day and decays away (pardon the pun) in the days that follow. Do a search on decay heat production in google and see how the decay heat falls off as time goes on.