Page 25 of 36 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 356

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

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    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?
    How do you know what nuclear power station manufacturers say about extending usage?

    Where have is said that it's not valid for solar power? Just to remind since it's reading at least 15 lines up, we were talking about estimates, and how those should be done. Those are and should be based on manufacturer promises.
    Last edited by virta; 10-06-2011 at 11:45 AM.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    o wow you go for advance i use it all the time because i'm not so good in English.
    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!
    No, basic physics. All energy transmission suffers what's called transmission losses. A large power station, be it coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind etc, will suffer the same drop in what you called efficiency because of transmission losses. You won't suffer the same percentage drop because your transmission lines are probably only 10m long. When you're talking of transmission lines hundreds of kilometres long, then you get into the large percentage drops due to transmission losses. Why do you think that national grid electricity is transmitted at hundreds of kV? Not just because of the cable size, but because the energy loss in the cables increases as the ampage increases. If you increase the voltage, you can lower the ampage and hence the transmission losses reduce.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    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.
    Au contraire my friend, what you are thinking about is load factor. That is, the actual amount of electricity produced by the installation, divided by it's theoretical maximum. So, for a nuclear plant running with a 24 month cycle (period between refuelling outages) we would expect a load factor of 90-95%. For a wind farm, because the wind doesn't always blow at the speed you wantthe load factor is, at most, 30%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    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
    Sorry, but this is where you are wrong. The law specifies that "Were due to this regulation for the first time the cost of renewables surcharge determined with the result that the final consumer with about 2 cents / kWh by the EEG surcharge is charged "

    This surcharge is paid, by the consumer as a subsidy for the cost of renewables. The above quote is taken directly (well, via google translate) from the German wikipedia entry which you are so fond of quoting.

    And again "As the EEG is regulated, in that plant operators receive the commissioning of the power plant applicable compensation rates for this year and another twenty years, in large hydro (over 5 MW) for 15 years (§ 21 para 2 EEG). This definition is intended to plant operators are given sufficient investment security." Sufficient investment security = subsidy.

    Oh, and this: "The current feed-in tariffs for different years can be found in the following table (in net terms). Directed [34] [35] [36] The compensation after the year of commissioning remains constant for 20 years. Are the benefit rates graduated according to the application (systems on buildings ...), is the fee proportionately: When a roof erected in 2009 system with a peak power of 40 kW to 30 kW, an allowance of 43.01 cents / kWh paid for the remaining 10 kW will be paid 40.91 cents / kWh until the end of 2029th." A feed-in tariff is a guaranteed price paid to the producer and is a subsidy.

    The English language wiki says this about the feed-in tariff in Germany: "In 2005, 10 per cent of electricity in Germany came from renewable sources and 70 per cent of this was supported with feed-in tariffs. The Federal Environment Ministry estimates that this will save 52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2010. The average level of feed-in tariff was €0.0953 per kWh in 2005 (compared to an average cost of displaced energy of €0.047 kWh). The total level of subsidy was €2.4 billion, at a cost per consumer of €0.0056 per kWh (3 per cent of household electricity costs)."

    If there wasn't this guaranteed price for renewables, a subsidy, then they would not be economic.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    If you increase the voltage, you can lower the ampage and hence the transmission losses reduce.
    And this loss with modern HVDC technology is ~3% / 1000km. So you have to have your nuclear power plan really far to have 6% loss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    For a wind farm, because the wind doesn't always blow at the speed you wantthe load factor is, at most, 30%.
    Average for germany is 17% (It changes a bit. I think that worst year has been 15%). On really good places for wind farms like Denmark average is 25%. And what you should know is that all the best places are already taken. Adding capacity brings load factor down for wind power.

    BTW. Last year finland had nuclear powerplant efficiency of 91% and that was worlds highest. Normally 85-90 is more realistic for OECD countries.
    Last edited by virta; 10-06-2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason: added nuclear power load factor

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    No, basic physics. All energy transmission suffers what's called transmission losses.
    calculate the percent of energy lost from my power plant 92% efficiency to my computer 5meter away. 3 meters are 6mm² copper cables with 400volt 3 phases and 2 meters are 1,5mm² copper cables with 230V 1phase.
    i lost 0,x% and your nuclear power station lost 6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    A large power station, be it coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind etc, will suffer the same drop in what you called efficiency because of transmission losses.
    you are wrong in : Gas,solar,wind because my power plant is a gas one. and my solar power plant is a solar one and you also can build wind in the place you use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    You won't suffer the same percentage drop because your transmission lines are probably only 10m long.
    wow you are genius wizard

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    When you're talking of transmission lines hundreds of kilometres long, then you get into the large percentage drops due to transmission losses.
    wow you are genius wizard thats why they pull the gas in pipelines and not on cables.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Why do you think that national grid electricity is transmitted at hundreds of kV? Not just because of the cable size, but because the energy loss in the cables increases as the ampage increases. If you increase the voltage, you can lower the ampage and hence the transmission losses reduce.
    i can prove that i know more about this than you.
    Your claim here and calculation is wrong because: "Xc = 1 / (2 · π · f · C)"
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindwiderstand
    and the solution is : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochspa...om-Übertragung
    and :http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supraleiter


    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Au contraire my friend, what you are thinking about is load factor.
    LOL really LOL no! i don't arguing in an "load factor" i arguing in that way: if there is no wind power plant the energy is lost without usage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    That is, the actual amount of electricity produced by the installation, divided by it's theoretical maximum. So, for a nuclear plant running with a 24 month cycle (period between refuelling outages) we would expect a load factor of 90-95%. For a wind farm, because the wind doesn't always blow at the speed you wantthe load factor is, at most, 30%.
    this is true but i dosn't matter because my argument is: if there is no wind power plant the energy is lost without usage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Sorry, but this is where you are wrong. The law specifies that "Were due to this regulation for the first time the cost of renewables surcharge determined with the result that the final consumer with about 2 cents / kWh by the EEG surcharge is charged "
    no you are wrong because: a subsidy is payed by GOV and the money comes from tax payers. and the EEG is a Pay as you walk model without any tax money.

    this means you are wrong by word definition off "subsidy"

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    This surcharge is paid, by the consumer as a subsidy for the cost of renewables. The above quote is taken directly (well, via google translate) from the German wikipedia entry which you are so fond of quoting.
    You are wrong by word definition off "subsidy" because no tax payed to gov and the gov don't pay money to the green energy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    And again "As the EEG is regulated, in that plant operators receive the commissioning of the power plant applicable compensation rates for this year and another twenty years, in large hydro (over 5 MW) for 15 years (§ 21 para 2 EEG). This definition is intended to plant operators are given sufficient investment security." Sufficient investment security = subsidy.
    no security isn't a subsidy because its a pay as you walk model if no one consume the power no one has to pay for it!

    because of this it isn't a subsidy you are wrong by word definition and wrong by sense.





    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Oh, and this: "The current feed-in tariffs for different years can be found in the following table (in net terms). Directed [34] [35] [36] The compensation after the year of commissioning remains constant for 20 years. Are the benefit rates graduated according to the application (systems on buildings ...), is the fee proportionately: When a roof erected in 2009 system with a peak power of 40 kW to 30 kW, an allowance of 43.01 cents / kWh paid for the remaining 10 kW will be paid 40.91 cents / kWh until the end of 2029th." A feed-in tariff is a guaranteed price paid to the producer and is a subsidy.
    hey i get 45 cent per kWh

    but: its not a subsidy because its a pay as you walk model if no one consume the power no one has to pay for it!



    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    The English language wiki says this about the feed-in tariff in Germany: "In 2005, 10 per cent of electricity in Germany came from renewable sources and 70 per cent of this was supported with feed-in tariffs. The Federal Environment Ministry estimates that this will save 52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2010. The average level of feed-in tariff was €0.0953 per kWh in 2005 (compared to an average cost of displaced energy of €0.047 kWh). The total level of subsidy was €2.4 billion, at a cost per consumer of €0.0056 per kWh (3 per cent of household electricity costs)."
    If there wasn't this guaranteed price for renewables, a subsidy, then they would not be economic.
    and again it isn't a subsidy because its a pay as you walk model if no one consume the power no one has to pay for it!

    You are wrong by word definition and by sense.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you are wrong in : Gas,solar,wind because my power plant is a gas one. and my solar power plant is a solar one and you also can build wind in the place you use it.
    You should go out more. There are these things called cities. People live there. Lots of people. Little space.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    LOL really LOL no! i don't arguing in an "load factor" i arguing in that way: if there is no wind power plant the energy is lost without usage.
    this is true but i dosn't matter because my argument is: if there is no wind power plant the energy is lost without usage.
    Your argument is stupid. E=mc2. Energy is newer lost. Question is about cost of harvesting it to usable form.
    Last edited by virta; 10-06-2011 at 01:11 PM.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    You should go out more. There are these things called cities. People live there. Lots of people. Little space.
    you are wrong because: i life in a citie and these kind of power plans are very small its micro-h&p


    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    Your argument is stupid. E=mc2. Energy is newer lost. Question is about cost of harvesting it to usable form.
    you are brain death the energy is lost for the HUMANS if the HUMANS don't use it.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you are wrong because: i life in a citie and these kind of power plans are very small its micro-h&p
    you are wrong because: solar panels or wind mills are not small.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you are brain death the energy is lost for the HUMANS if the HUMANS don't use it.
    you are brain death HUMANS can't and shouldn't use all energy.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    you are wrong because: solar panels or wind mills are not small.
    you are wrong because: i life in a city and solar and wind power plans are very small.

    my house produce 200-300% of our power need. without wind usage.

    its small source:
    http://www.haustechnikdialog.de/News...5-angekuendigt
    http://www.photovoltaik.eu/nachricht...rad_100003221/
    and for wind tiny versions : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savonius-Rotor


    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    you are brain death HUMANS can't and shouldn't use all energy.
    no you are wrong here humans should use all green energy!

    and i tell you how the Germans calculate: they pay 15 years for wind energy after that they get 85 years of free energy from the same wind power plant.

    thats because an realistic end of life for an wind power plant is 50-100 years.

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you are wrong because: i life in a city and solar and wind power plans are very small.
    my house produce 200-300% of our power need. without wind usage.
    you are wrong because: People in the cities don't live in houses. Apartments are way to go there. Not small enough. As I said, you should go out more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    no you are wrong here humans should use all green energy!
    you are wrong. Just affordable green energy. Without subsidies.

    Just to point to earlier "definition of subsidy". First, you with your mad skillz in enclish shouldn't really try to argue on deeper meaning of words. At lest I don't with probably equally bad skillz. Second, there are indirect subsidies that are not direct payments from government, and I'm sure that every economist would categorize this support of green energy as such.
    Last edited by virta; 10-06-2011 at 01:49 PM.

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    you are wrong because: People in the cities don't live in houses. Apartments are way to go there. Not small enough. As I said you should go out more.
    you are wrong because: micro-h&p are smaller than Apartments our one are:1m³
    and solar power panels are smaller than Apartments and savonius systems are smaller than apartments.
    you can put the solar modules on the Apartment wall on south and you can hold the the micro-savonius out of the windows.
    a Savonius system is our next investment we want to buy 2 pices of 5000 watt Savonius systems for our roof.

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    you are wrong. Just affordable green energy. Without subsidies.
    the Germans do not have Subsidies on green energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    Just to point to earlier "definition of subsidy". First, you with your mad skillz in enclish shouldn't really try to argue on deeper meaning of words. At lest I don't with probably equally bad skillz. Second, there are indirect subsidies that are not direct payments from government, and I'm sure that every economist would categorize this support of green energy as such.
    i give a fuck about my bad skills in english

    "not direct payments from government"

    sure there are no Subsidies on green energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    there are indirect subsidies
    no you are wrong there are no indirect subsidies for green energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by virta View Post
    and I'm sure that every economist would categorize this support of green energy as such.
    show me one. its a matter of fact that there is no Subsidies on green energy in germany.

Posting Permissions

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