Reply With QuoteNo, 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.Originally Posted by Qaridarium
o wow you go for advancei 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!
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%.
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.
