Page 24 of 36 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 356

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

  1. #231
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    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?
    your only problem is the "german" language so i will translate it for you.

    "ok we set "36%" as the efficiency and then comes some arguments against it:
    First argument:
    Wikipedia: "because of the fact its a very big power plant you need longer cables to the customers because of this you lost energy on the cables in germany they lost 6% of the energy on the cable net because of this"
    "↑ 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:
    the second german text: "The efficiency of the total system drops down because of the energy to build it and run it and the energy cost of the demolition of the nuclear power plant and the energy consuming of earning the uran.

    and a last argumentation: you lost energy by radioactivity

    now try it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Ah, the old 'Adolf Hitler' defence. What's the problem, are the numbers I quoted (again, quoted below) too 'inconvenient' for you?
    its not a defense its just Cynicism. and the defense is: the Germans now start the fight you will see results in 10 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    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.
    the german now do an investment in 25 000 000 000€ in cables and 400 000 000 000€ in new power plants after this german will not be a importer of electricity.
    but yes you don't understand the word "investment"
    and statistic isn't valid until the end of the year this means we talk again on the end of the year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    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?
    you can also do this without any cable : Warden-cliff
    (and again this isn't an argument its just cynicism again)

  2. #232
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Heh, just remembered about Google translate.
    o wow you go for advance i use it all the time because i'm not so good in English.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    The statement about electricity transmission lines is true
    o wow... you accept an argument? so its not 36% efficiency of a nuclear power plant.. LOL
    after all my arguments you get a energy efficiency 4-10% !
    but yes you can fight for every single 1%


    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    , but that's not what I was talking about and affects all electricity generation equally.
    Liar! this does not affect my 92% efficiency power plant! because my micro-heat-and-power-power-plant is 2 rooms away from me.
    you only talk FUD!

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    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.
    This isn'T an valid argument because the energy efficiency of wind power doesn't matter because the wind energy is lost if you use it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Another article to find some amusement from (and only included as a bit of fun) is this one.
    what is your problem here? the Germans are free to do this.



    Even the german Spiegel can be wrong. and you can prove this wrongness by your self just read the german wikipedia article about the EEG law.
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuer...nergien-Gesetz
    there are no subsidies !

    subsidies for renewables are against the law in germany. only coal and nuclear get subsidies

  3. #233
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    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!
    Yes. They are like that. They tend to trust manufacturers instead of talk on forums when it comes to lifetime.

  4. #234
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeealpal View Post
    And there is the English Version:
    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.
    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.

  5. #235
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    Yes. They are like that. They tend to trust manufacturers instead of talk on forums when it comes to lifetime.
    they also run nuclear power plants out of life-time.

  6. #236
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    You typing this from Chernobyl?
    // sorry, couldn't ressist
    Or from coal mines?

    Summary of severe* accidents in energy chains for electricity 1969-2000
    OECD Non-OECD
    Energy chain Fatalities Fatalities/TWy Fatalities Fatalities/TWy
    Coal 2259 157 18,000 597
    Natural gas 1043 85 1000 111
    Hydro 14 3 30,000 10,285
    Nuclear 0 0 31 48
    Data from Paul Scherrer Institut, in OECD 2010. * severe = more than 5 fatalities

  7. #237
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    You typing this from Chernobyl?

    // sorry, couldn't ressist


    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.
    LOL yes... modern food is just like a nuclear reactor you never know when it flies into the air.

  8. #238
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    Yes. They are like that. They tend to trust manufacturers instead of talk on forums when it comes to lifetime.
    we have in Germany well research solar power plants 30-40 years old.

  9. #239
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    we have in Germany well research solar power plants 30-40 years old.
    You still can't make estimates based on anything else than manufacturer promises. 40 years old nuclear plants are now given 20 years extra time and power output has been increased multiple times.

  10. #240
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    You still can't make estimates based on anything else than manufacturer promises. 40 years old nuclear plants are now given 20 years extra time and power output has been increased multiple times.
    and why you can use a nuclear power station longer than 40 years and this is out of any manufacturer promises.

    and for nuclear power "High-Danger" this is valid but not for "Not Danger" solar power?

    Its a matter of fact that quality solar power plants with 20 years of manufacturer Guarantee can run 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
  •