Page 32 of 36 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 356

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

  1. #311
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tweenk View Post
    So the Germans turned off nuclear power plants and now have to spend 400 billion € to replace them with green energy. In the meantime, millions of tons of fossil fuels will be burned.
    Why didn't they spend 400 billion € on green energy first, THEN turn off the nuclear power plants? It would save a lot of CO2 and the end effect would be the same.
    That's why I consider this decision stupid, reactionary and irresponsible. You started from the wrong end. If you want to protect the environment, coal should be the first to go. Unfortunately the green clowns are completely unable of comprehending that.
    EDIT: I would advise other people to not post anything more to this thread. Arguing with Q is pointless and pushes his propaganda title to the Phoronix main page in the "popular in the forums" column.
    The sense is not to save CO2 the sense is to stop global warming.
    and you can not stop global warming with nuclear power plants.
    because why? its simple because the energy efficiency of nuclear power plants based on the nuclear fuel is only 4% and based on the heat in the peak using time its only 20-30%
    this means you pollute at minimum 5 times more heat to the earth atmosphere per 1 kw electric power.
    a 2 GW Nuclear power station pollute 10GW heat! even more if you calculate the time of the maintenance and the time of the heat wasting in the cooling pond and so one and so one.
    you can not stop Global warming by heating the global atmosphere up with nuclear power.
    maybe yes its less than 80% heating the atmosphere because you save "CO2" but the german also save CO2
    They only do this in an different way.

    they prefer to save CO2 at the building heating. Germany will never Pollute more CO2 than in the past!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tweenk View Post
    Why didn't they spend 400 billion € on green energy first, THEN turn off the nuclear power plants? It would save a lot of CO2 and the end effect would be the same.
    Sure thats maybe the better way to go but in the end its the same in the end the sense is to shut down the nuclear power plants.

    you can not save nature and the earth by building new nuclear power plants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tweenk View Post
    If you want to protect the environment, coal should be the first to go.
    no you are wrong there is no problem with coal and the first to go is "Efficiency"

    if you build coal power plants with 90%+ efficiency and combination solar power in the coal power plant there is no problem with coal.
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 10-24-2011 at 08:58 AM.

  2. #312

    Default

    do you have any reference for global warming by direct heating of the atmosphere by power stations?

    for scale radiative forcing of global warming is at the level of 1-2 watts per sq metre (from the IPCC). call it 1.5 W/m^2 and you get 770 TW of heating for the whole planet. compare that to the global energy consumption of 15 TW. (remember that to a good approximation all the energy used will end up heating earth.)

    but i am not even sure that is a sensible comparison. the earth gets direct heating of 176 PW (176000 TW) from the sun which completely dwarfs any amount of heat we can generate. obviously most of that escapes, because otherwise the earth would be vaporised a short time. global warming is due to changing how effectively the atmosphere traps that heat.

    solar panels are also fairly inefficient, especially the ones cheap enough to cover a useful area, so they will heat their surroundings to.

  3. #313
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    do you have any reference for global warming by direct heating of the atmosphere by power stations?
    its just basic physic law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

    you can only cool down by "efficiency" because "efficiency" save CO2 and heat.

    for example you can build a updraft tornado power plant on-top on a nuclear power plant.
    this means you use the 10Gigawatt heat to updraft the air in your "tower" Tornado
    a updraft power plant do have 10% efficiency this means 1Gigawatt extra electric energy from the same nuclear power plant.
    you get what? "efficiency" is the only think that matters! and you can use ""efficiency"" on an nuclear power plant and an coal power plant and so one and so one.

    only efficiency helps.

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    for scale radiative forcing of global warming is at the level of 1-2 watts per sq metre (from the IPCC). call it 1.5 W/m^2 and you get 770 TW of heating for the whole planet. compare that to the global energy consumption of 15 TW. (remember that to a good approximation all the energy used will end up heating earth.)
    but i am not even sure that is a sensible comparison. the earth gets direct heating of 176 PW (176000 TW) from the sun which completely dwarfs any amount of heat we can generate. obviously most of that escapes, because otherwise the earth would be vaporised a short time. global warming is due to changing how effectively the atmosphere traps that heat.
    you are right here.
    And yes there are always 2 parts the "heat" and the Trap "Atmosphere"
    reduce heat works and chancing the Atmosphere works to.
    the Germans try to reduce Heat by shutting down Nuclear power plants
    And they try to reduce CO2 by increasing the efficiency in Building heating.
    The KFW-Bank spend ~300 000 1% credit and 37 500 in cash for an 4 apartment house to reduce CO2 and Heat.
    they also force the people by LAW to reduce CO2 and heat.

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    solar panels are also fairly inefficient, especially the ones cheap enough to cover a useful area, so they will heat their surroundings to.
    if you don't put photoelectric panels on the roof you lost the energy anyway.
    this means to arguing about efficiency is pointless against solar and wind and water energy.

  4. #314

    Default

    waste heat is a really negligible issue.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/wast...e-warming.html

    if you switched all electricity production to nuclear, and electrified transport, heating and cooking, then you would get rid of 1-2 W/m^2 of heating. the 0.028 W/m^2 from waste heat would not be an issue. currently most of or power comes from fossil fuels and so produces the same negligible amount of waste heat as nuclear.

    making things more efficient so that you don't need to generate some much electricity is important.

    if you cover large areas of desert solar systems do they reflect more or less of the suns heat than sand? i am going to guess the reflect less, so the will cause some local heating, and i guess this is on a similar scale to waste heat from generating the same electricity with any other power station.

    have you seen the idea to reduce global warming by painting roofs white? solar panels look pretty close to black to me.

  5. #315
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    this means you use the 10Gigawatt heat to updraft the air in your "tower" Tornado
    I said I wouldn't, but this has driven me to reply...

    How are you proposing that you get 10GW of heat from a nuclear power plant that only generates 4500MWth (i.e. 4.5GW of heat)?

    It is readily apparent that you don't understand how power stations work.

    Leave this thread to the experts. You may as well , it'll save wasting the electrons with your stupid posts.
    Last edited by Shielder; 10-24-2011 at 02:42 PM.

  6. #316
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwich, UK
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Sorry for the double post...

    Q, I understand how passionate you are about 'green' energy, but you must look at the existing technologies as well.

    You obviously have some understanding of green technology, but you seem to be very blinkered to existing technologies (see my last post for the 10GW 'error' you had in your last post).

    There needs to be a mix of technologies for energy generation. Renewables cannot fulfil the energy requirements of any industrialised nation. You need existing thermal power plants as well.

    I admire your single mindedness. Just let some alternative viewpoints and some scientific facts in and we will have a good discussion. Being blinkered into thinking that you alone know what the answer is just make you look silly.

  7. #317
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    I said I wouldn't, but this has driven me to reply...
    How are you proposing that you get 10GW of heat from a nuclear power plant that only generates 4500MWth (i.e. 4.5GW of heat)?
    It is readily apparent that you don't understand how power stations work.
    Leave this thread to the experts. You may as well , it'll save wasting the electrons with your stupid posts.
    We Discuses this in the past i calculate based on the (Nuclear)FUEL not on the heat on the FUEL its 4% efficiency.
    Also i calculate the Thermal efficiency on the average heat usage per 1KW electric power and not the peak at the best point.
    I also calculate -6% on the Electric side because its a big power plant and not a micro power plant so you need long cable and you lose energy on the long way.
    I also calculate the energy lost on the Peak Load Backup because nuclear power plants can not service Peak Load.
    your "4.5GW of heat" is only relevant if you build a updraft tornado power plant because you only get 10% of this 4,GW and not from the 10GW
    but overall you do have 10GW energy lost based on the FUEL "Nuclear" because you only calculate on Thermal energy lost i also calculate on radiation lost and all other shit also.

  8. #318
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    waste heat is a really negligible issue.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/wast...e-warming.html
    Your knowledge about this is to small and the calculation in your source about this is to simple to get the fact.
    Also you don't understand the fact that for every single Watt you save on the waste of heat side you also save CO2 greenhouse gas this means you cool down both sides.
    your claim that wasting heat is a negligible issue is bullshit.
    Even a Nuclear power plant Pollute CO2 and pollute CO2+wasting heat=Stupid idea.
    Also your source only calculate the waste heat about the electric power plants but humans waste heat everywhere they waste in on house Home heating,ventilation,cars,air planes,food and they also waste heat on electric they use bulbs instead of LEDs and so one and so one.
    in my point of view you can multiply the number in your source in factor 100 or more.

    also: You claim the energy waste is always +PLUS but in fact it can be -Minus.

    for example you can drive a aluminum smelter as a negative power plant in a smart grid and then you can sink the aluminum blocks in the Earth as a long therm energy storage.

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    if you switched all electricity production to nuclear, and electrified transport, heating and cooking, then you would get rid of 1-2 W/m^2 of heating. the 0.028 W/m^2 from waste heat would not be an issue. currently most of or power comes from fossil fuels and so produces the same negligible amount of waste heat as nuclear.
    history teach us us that its impossible to do that save and healthy also nuclear power plants pollute CO2.

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    making things more efficient so that you don't need to generate some much electricity is important.
    You are right and this is my point of view. its very important. thats the Germany way to: make thinks more Efficient.


    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    if you cover large areas of desert solar systems do they reflect more or less of the suns heat than sand?
    In Germany we do not have any desert.
    We do not build solar power plants on that areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    i am going to guess the reflect less, so the will cause some local heating, and i guess this is on a similar scale to waste heat from generating the same electricity with any other power station.
    your point is pointless because Germany so not have any desert.
    in germany in fact Solar power plants do not pollute heat.


    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    have you seen the idea to reduce global warming by painting roofs white? solar panels look pretty close to black to me.
    it dosn't matter both work. but solar power plant save factor 2,8 on electric power if you produce 1kw solar electric power you save 3kw of heat because other power plants pollute much more.

    germany do have 12GigaWatt Solar power plants this means you save ~36GigaWatt heat.

    sure maybe you save heat with painting roofs white but then you will Pollute 36GigaWatt in power plants.
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 10-24-2011 at 10:32 PM.

  9. #319
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Sorry for the double post...

    Q, I understand how passionate you are about 'green' energy, but you must look at the existing technologies as well.

    You obviously have some understanding of green technology, but you seem to be very blinkered to existing technologies (see my last post for the 10GW 'error' you had in your last post).

    There needs to be a mix of technologies for energy generation. Renewables cannot fulfil the energy requirements of any industrialised nation. You need existing thermal power plants as well.

    I admire your single mindedness. Just let some alternative viewpoints and some scientific facts in and we will have a good discussion. Being blinkered into thinking that you alone know what the answer is just make you look silly.
    An alternative viewpoint about nuclear power is only valid if you put the nuclear power plant into a submarine and let it operate 200km away in the sea then the distance and the water makes sure no human are harmed.

    You confusing scientific facts with your personal point of view for example you still think a nuclear power plant do have 30+ efficiency but you do not calculate on the fuel you calculate on the "Heat" but you always calculate based on the FUEL ! you also do only calculate the peak load thermal efficiency. and you don't cover peak load backup power plants. all these stuff prove you really confusing scientific facts with your personal point of view.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Renewables cannot fulfil the energy requirements of any industrialised nation.
    Be sure it can! but this is a expensive investment.
    You need Methane synthesis plants in a smart grid driven as a negative power plant and you also can drive full carbon synthesis.
    they only don't do it because its expensive.
    they prefer to get the cheap 40% Renewable energies.

    "existing thermal power plants" right now they use it as power plants in the future they use the existing thermal power plants only as a backup solution. this save a lot of energy and co2.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shielder View Post
    Being blinkered into thinking that you alone know what the answer is just make you look silly.
    look silly and be silly are 2 different parts.

    one example about this is we talk about shutting down 8 nuclear power plants but the atom fan-boys don't get the point Germany only shut down the 8 worst and oldest 50 year old nuclear power plants.
    In fact Germany run nuclear power plants because they are not ready yet to drop them all.
    if they are ready in the future and they shut them down be sure they will have the most advance electric power system and most advance smart grid electric cable system in the world!

    In fact the Germans will do it better in the future!
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 10-24-2011 at 10:56 PM.

  10. #320
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv...kraftwerk.html

    German Vattenfall start to burn 50% wood pellets in there coal power plants.

    this save 430 000 tons CO2 per year for every coal power plant.

Posting Permissions

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