Page 23 of 36 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 356

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

  1. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grantek View Post
    Nuclear fission is safe and clean, even more so with current designs, but it's very expensive, so if there isn't popular support for it it just won't work

    Also, Linux is safe and clean, even more so with current designs, but it's very open, so if there isn't popular support for its direction it just won't become standard
    If you evaluate energy options according to total energy divided by total cost, nuclear power becomes the most inexpensive form of energy available, provided you do not push radiation shielding well beyond what is required to maintain acceptable emissions (e.g. that of a cellular tower).
    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    yes why not? but they are smart no nuclear power plant in germany means no nuclear accident in germany like chernobyl and fukushima

    germans are really smart!
    The irony of this statement is that you think that avoiding such incidents is bad, but the price you pay to avoid them is much worse. The alternatives to nuclear power are multitude of little disasters whose sum is far is completely ignored. With a nuclear power plant, the potential for damage is centralized, so you can do more about it. With the alternatives, the issues go undetected by the mainstream media, so nothing is done about it. The radioactive material emitted by coal burning power plants across their lifetime far exceeds anything a nuclear meltdown would produce. Nuclear fission technology is the least destructive form of energy production today per Wh, even if you assume every plant will have a meltdown. It can be said that many cases of cancer are a result of these alternatives. Radiation is not the only issue, but it is one of many. Chemical contamination is another problem. The two are likely the catalysts for many cases of cancer, but of course, no one ever thinks about that.

    With that said, you can keep applauding the people making short sighted decisions for being "smart". When few people know enough to know better, numerous people will laud you for being "smart" if you say what they think, even if they think the most backward things conceivable.

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    The irony of this statement is that you think that avoiding such incidents is bad, but the price you pay to avoid them is much worse.
    There is no irony because i don't think so. you don't have to pay to avoiding such incident is not needed if you keep distance of 100-200km from any human being.

    So you fight against your own illusion of "Qaridarium"

    my point of view is simple: Germany do not have any place for nuclear power plants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    The alternatives to nuclear power are multitude of little disasters whose sum is far is completely ignored.
    With a nuclear power plant, the potential for damage is centralized, so you can do more about it.
    The Germans are fine with trading energy over cables and they pay for the cables so all is fine!
    The Germans do not have a problem with Nuclear power stations the Germans do have a problem with Nuclear Power stations in Germany.
    They prefer other kind of power stations in Germany.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    With the alternatives, the issues go undetected by the mainstream media, so nothing is done about it.
    do you know the German-THW ? (Technical Help Worldwide organization) we really control the issues.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technisches_Hilfswerk

    the THW do have 84000 people stay on line for intervene any issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    The radioactive material emitted by coal burning power plants across their lifetime far exceeds anything a nuclear meltdown would produce.
    the Germans only use coal as a bridge technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Nuclear fission technology is the least destructive form of energy production today per Wh, even if you assume every plant will have a meltdown. It can be said that many cases of cancer are a result of these alternatives. Radiation is not the only issue, but it is one of many. Chemical contamination is another problem. The two are likely the catalysts for many cases of cancer, but of course, no one ever thinks about that.
    do you know anything about germany? germany do have one of the world advanced health insurance system.
    and Germany do have one of the world strongest "law" against any kind of toxic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    With that said, you can keep applauding the people making short sighted decisions for being "smart". When few people know enough to know better, numerous people will laud you for being "smart" if you say what they think, even if they think the most backward things conceivable.
    sure i do i really think they are smart to do so.

    its smart to let other people DIE to deliver energy to Germany just because they are so stupid and build there energy industry on top on a nuclear power.

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tweenk View Post
    Q, you are using a technique of debate known as Gish Gallop. That is, instead of considering the presented information before writing a reply, you are meeting every post with an unending stream of bullshit and misinterpreted information, in hope of tiring the opponent into leaving.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
    The German Wikipedia say this to your claim:

    "Zuerst ermesse man den verstandesmäßigen Horizont des Zielpublikums. Dann postuliere man eine Conclusio, welche man mit Fakten, die sich gerade noch innerhalb, und Halbwahrheiten die bereits außerhalb, aber immer noch in der Nähe des Horizonts des Opfers stehen, belegt. Abrunden kann man das ganze dann mit Begriffen, die sich dem Verständnis des Betrogenen bereits entziehen, von denen dieser jedoch schon gehört hat, was den Horizont des „Galoppierenden“ dann im Vergleich zum eigenen sehr weit wirken lassen, und die Inkompetenz des Opponenten suggerieren soll."

    fast google translate:
    ""First of discre to the intellectual horizon of the target audience. Then posit a conclusion, which is full of facts, which is just inside, and half-truths that can already occupied outside, but are still near the horizon of the victim. Rounding it will then suggest the whole in terms that are beyond the understanding of the deceived already, but this is one of them has been what can be the horizon of the "Galloping" then act in comparison to their own very well, and the incompetence of opponents. ""

    So it only works if the intellectual horizon of the discussion members is low and the discussion members do have no understanding.

    But if so? I'm right anyway.

    Thank you to prove me right because my enemies are low in Intellectual horizon and they do have no understanding.

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default



    the US GOV also think that the "Advance Nuclear Power" isn't cheap.

    there are many much cheaper energy !

  5. #225
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    the US GOV also think that the "Advance Nuclear Power" isn't cheap.
    there are many much cheaper energy !
    Yes creating co2 is cheaper. Anything else with acceptable price is not available in quantity that has any effect.

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    ok we set "36%" as the efficiency and then comes some arguments against it:

    First argument:
    wikipedia: "Durch den Umstand, dass es sich bei einem Kernkraftwerk um ein Großkraftwerk handelt, ergeben sich zudem im Durchschnitt längere Leitungen zum Endverbraucher, womit auch das Total der Übertragungsverluste steigt; in Deutschland gehen durch Netzverluste rund 6 % der bereitgestellten Elektroenergie im Stromnetz verloren."
    "↑ Monatsbericht über die Elektrizitätsversorgung Statistischen Bundesamts, Wiesbaden, Stand 4. Quartal 2008"

    oh you lost another 6% now we calculate 36% -6%= 33,84 now you only have 33,84

    Second Argument:
    now comes the maintenance work and the heat goes not into electricity now what?

    Another wikipedia argument:
    "Der Wirkungsgrad des gesamten Systems wird wie bei allen Energieerzeugungsanlagen reduziert durch den Energiebedarf zum Bau, Betrieb und Rückbau des Kraftwerks. Der Aufwand des Uranabbaus steigt aufgrund des knapper werdenden Rohstoffes stetig."
    you have to build it and you have to run it and you have to dispose it and you have to get uran.

    and a last argumentation: you lost energy by radioactivity

    so what? your number ""36%"" is broken I'm so sad about your number
    Sorry, but it's been 20 years since I last spoke or read German, so I can't read what you've written. However, I do believe that you have a tenuous grasp (on reality ) of English, so I'll just say: how can you argue that the 36% thermal efficiency of the EPR is wrong when we take the thermal power output of the reactor (4500MWt) and the electrical power output (1630MWe) and divide 1630 by 4500 to get 36%??? This is basic maths that my 8 year old can understand. Why can't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    the last German with the fantasy of German autonomy was Adolf Hitler and this ended in the second world war.
    Ah, the old 'Adolf Hitler' defence. What's the problem, are the numbers I quoted (again, quoted below) too 'inconvenient' for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Looking at the figures from ENTSO we can calculate the following (please pardon the formatting):

    German Electricity imports and exports (in GWe)

    Period Exported Imported Balance
    Q1/2011 18557 10463 8094
    Q2/2011 10045 13698 -3653
    July 2011 2582 3384 -802
    So, in the second quarter, after the shutdown of those 8 reactors, Germany became a net importer of electricity. Completely blowing the OP out of the water.

    Oh, and Quazimodo says that Germans are happy to pay for cables to transmit electricity. Yeah right. Electricity transport from the wind rich north to the wind poor south will go through areas designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty. The local populations do not want the cables to go through their valleys, over their hills and through their forests. So, how are you going to transport all of that clean green energy south to the industrial heartland of Germany?

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Heh, just remembered about Google translate.

    The statement about electricity transmission lines is true, but that's not what I was talking about and affects all electricity generation equally. This is especially true of the power lines I referred to above running from the wind rich north to the wind poor south. See this BBC article for a layman's explanation.

    Another article to find some amusement from (and only included as a bit of fun) is this one.

    So, even Der Spiegel admits that the German renewable sector gets subsidies...

    And again, even quoted as saying "The problem is the federal government's outlandish subsidies policy. Electricity customers are already paying more than €13 billion this year to subsidize renewable energy. The largest subsidies go to solar plants, which contribute relatively little to overall power generation, as well as offshore wind farms in the north, which are far away from the countries largest electricity consumers in Germany's deep south."

    What was it you were saying? No subsidies for renweables? Blatant lie.
    Last edited by Shielder; 10-06-2011 at 06:35 AM. Reason: Add subsidies link

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    The German Wikipedia say this to your claim:

    "Zuerst ermesse man den verstandesmäßigen Horizont des Zielpublikums. Dann postuliere man eine Conclusio, welche man mit Fakten, die sich gerade noch innerhalb, und Halbwahrheiten die bereits außerhalb, aber immer noch in der Nähe des Horizonts des Opfers stehen, belegt. Abrunden kann man das ganze dann mit Begriffen, die sich dem Verständnis des Betrogenen bereits entziehen, von denen dieser jedoch schon gehört hat, was den Horizont des „Galoppierenden“ dann im Vergleich zum eigenen sehr weit wirken lassen, und die Inkompetenz des Opponenten suggerieren soll."

    fast google translate:
    ""First of discre to the intellectual horizon of the target audience. Then posit a conclusion, which is full of facts, which is just inside, and half-truths that can already occupied outside, but are still near the horizon of the victim. Rounding it will then suggest the whole in terms that are beyond the understanding of the deceived already, but this is one of them has been what can be the horizon of the "Galloping" then act in comparison to their own very well, and the incompetence of opponents. ""

    So it only works if the intellectual horizon of the discussion members is low and the discussion members do have no understanding.

    But if so? I'm right anyway.

    Thank you to prove me right because my enemies are low in Intellectual horizon and they do have no understanding.
    And there is the English Version:

    The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised. Usually this results in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles just to decide where to start. It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

    Which is saying when confronted with facts, logic etc... a reasonable argument the other side [you, Q] spew a heap of bullshit that makes its pointless and impossible to reasonably argue with you. As evident.

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Nuclear fission technology is the least destructive form of energy production today per Wh, even if you assume every plant will have a meltdown. It can be said that many cases of cancer are a result of these alternatives. Radiation is not the only issue, but it is one of many. Chemical contamination is another problem.
    You typing this from Chernobyl?

    // sorry, couldn't ressist

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    The two are likely the catalysts for many cases of cancer, but of course, no one ever thinks about that.
    Its in the food. I give you a good example of modern food. Mcdonalds Hamburger.
    Bread-> genetically modified corn, grown with pestizides, mixed with great amount of white drug(sugar) to bump insulin production so person eats MOAR.
    Meat -> genetically selected animals, grown in closed factories, in cages, rarely more than 4 months old, pumped with grown hormones and antibiotics to prevent epidemies(cause no animal can live in such conditions; both hormones and antibiotics stay within meat and are transfered into eaters blood system). The meat is grilled in palm oil(cheapest) which contains GREAT amount of saturated fatty acids and nothing else - palm oil literally trashes blood vessels and organs. And because its grilled welcome acrolein and other cancerogene or toxic substances, free radicals included.
    Sauce -> genetically modified tomatos(in best cases) with pesticides, picked up in early stages from fields and transfered over 4 months to production plants over the sea, then made to ripe via gas, mixed with good amount of white drug(sugar) or its replacement(all - cancerogenes), emulsifiers(variety, to boost endproduct amount and minimize cost), good deal of glutamate.

    Best served cold.
    Last edited by crazycheese; 10-06-2011 at 09:57 AM.

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    Yes creating co2 is cheaper. Anything else with acceptable price is not available in quantity that has any effect.
    the trick about your statistic against solar power for example is just the time of running.

    if you calculate it on 10 years or 20years your number is 200 dollars. if you run it on 40 years your number is 100 dollar this means its cheaper than nuclear power.

    and my solar modules can work 40 years!

Posting Permissions

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